ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 7 LOWER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA Arizona Department of Water Resources DRAFT December 2007 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 CONTENTS PREFACE SECTION 7.0 Overview of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 7.0.1 Geography 7.0.2 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 7.0.3 Climate 7.0.4 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs Threatened and Endangered Species National Monuments, Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas Managed Waters 7.0.5 Population Population Growth and Water Use 7.0.6 Water Supply Colorado River Water Central Arizona Project Water  Surface Water Groundwater Effluent Contamination Sites 7.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Tribal Water Demand Municipal Demand  Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 7.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Colorado River Issues Groundwater Transportation Planning and Conservation Issue Surveys 7.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics REFERENCES SECTION 7.1 Water Resource Characteristics of the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.1 Geography of the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.2 Land Ownership in the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.3 Climate of the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the DRAFT 1 1 3 5 5 11 15 18 18 21 21 24 27 28 29 31 32 38 39 39 41 41 44 45 47 52 61 63 63 66 66 67 69 73 81 82 84 86 88 i Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Butler Valley Basin 7.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.7 Water Quality of the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Butler Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 7.0 SECTION 7.2 Water Resource Characteristics of the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.1 Geography of the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.2 Land Ownership in the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.3 Climate of the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.7 Water Quality of the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Gila Bend Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 7.0 SECTION 7.3 Water Resource Characteristics of the Harquahala Basin 7.3.1 Geography of the Harquahala Basin 7.3.2 Land Ownership in the Harquahala Basin 7.3.3 Climate of the Harquahala Basin 7.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Harquahala Basin 7.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Harquahala Basin 7.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Harquahala Basin 7.3.7 Water Quality of the Harquahala Basin 7.3.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Harquahala Basin 7.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Harquahala Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 7.0 SECTION 7.4  Water Resource Characteristics of the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.1 Geography of the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.2 Land Ownership in the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.3 Climate of the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the ii 92 93 98 100 104 105 110 111 112 114 116 119 125 127 133 139 143 145 150 151 152 154 156 159 163 164 173 177 181 183 188 189 190 192 195 198 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Lower Gila Basin 7.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.7 Water Quality of the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Lower Gila Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 7.0 SECTION 7.5 Water Resource Characteristics of the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.1 Geography of the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.2 Land Ownership in the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.3 Climate of the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.7 Water Quality of the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.8 Cultural Water Demands in the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the McMullen Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 7.0 SECTION 7.6 Water Resource Characteristics of the Parker Basin 7.6.1 Geography of the Parker Basin 7.6.2 Land Ownership in the Parker Basin 7.6.3 Climate of the Parker Basin 7.6.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Parker Basin 7.6.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Parker Basin 7.6.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Parker Basin 7.6.7 Water Quality of the Parker Basin 7.6.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Parker Basin 7.6.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Parker Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 7.0 SECTION 7.7 Water Resource Characteristics of the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.1 Geography of the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.2 Land Ownership in the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.3 Climate of the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the DRAFT 203 206 214 223 228 233 238 239 240 242 244 247 251 252 260 264 268 271 276 277 278 280 282 285 289 291 297 301 305 308 313 315 316 318 320 322 iii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.7 Water Quality of the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Ranegras Plain Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 7.0 SECTION 7.8 Water Resource Characteristics of the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.1 Geography of the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.2 Land Ownership in the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.3 Climate of the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.4 Surface Water Conditions in the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.6 Groundwater Conditions of the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.7 Water Quality of the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.8 Cultural Water Demands in the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the San Simon Wash Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 7.0 SECTION 7.9 Water Resource Characteristics of the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.1 Geography of the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.2 Land Ownership in the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.3 Climate of the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.7 Water Quality of the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Tiger Wash Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 7.0 SECTION 7.10 Water Resource Characteristics of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.1 Geography of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.2 Land Ownership in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.3 Climate of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the iv 326 327 333 337 341 343 348 349 350 352 354 357 361 362 366 370 374 375 380 381 382 384 386 388 392 394 398 400 403 404 408 409 410 413 415 417 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.7 Water Quality of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 7.0 SECTION 7.11 Water Resource Characteristics of the Yuma Basin 7.11.1 Geography of the Yuma Basin 7.11.2 Land Ownership in the Yuma Basin 7.11.3 Climate of the Yuma Basin 7.11.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Yuma Basin 7.11.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Yuma Basin 7.11.6 Groundwater Conditions in the Yuma Basin 7.11.7 Water Quality of the Yuma Basin 7.11.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Yuma Basin 7.11.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin References and Supplemental Reading Index to Section 7.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APPENDIX A: Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area through 2005  APPENDIX B: Arizona Colorado River Water Use: Present Perfected Right Holders and Priority 1-6 Contractors in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area APPENDIX C: Colorado River Management  DRAFT 422 424 429 431 434 435 438 439 440 442 444 447 452 454 460 465 469 480 486 488 492 494 502 v Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 FIGURES Figure 7.0-1 Figure 7.0-2 Figure 7.0-3 Figure 7.0-4 Figure 7.0-5 Figure 7.0-6 Figure 7.0-7 Figure 7.0-8 Figure 7.0-9 Figure 7.0-10 Figure 7.0-11 Figure 7.0-12 Figure 7.0-13 Figure 7.0-14 Figure 7.0-15 Figure 7.0-16 Figure 7.0-17 Figure 7.1-1 Figure 7.1-2 Figure 7.1-3 Figure 7.1-4 Figure 7.1-5 Figure 7.1-6 Figure 7.1-7 Figure 7.1-8 Figure 7.1-9 Figure 7.2-1 Figure 7.2-2 Figure 7.2-3 Figure 7.2-4 Figure 7.2-5 Figure 7.2-6 Arizona Planning Areas 2 Lower Colorado River Planning Area 4 Lower Colorado River Planning Area USGS Watersheds 13 Average monthly precipitation and temperature from 1930-2002 16 Average annual temperature and total annual precipitation for the Lower Colorado River Planning Area from 1930-2002 17 Winter (November - April) precipitation departures from average 1000-1988 - Climate Division 5 18 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Biotic Communities and Ecoregions 20 LCR MSCP Reaches in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 23 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Protected Areas 26 Water supply utilized in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area in acre-feet (average annual use 2001-2003) 31 Operational Diagram of the Colorado River - Lower 36 Colorado River Planning Area Lower Colorado River Planning Area Contamination Sites 43 Average total basin water demand per year in acre-feet (2001-2003) 45 Irrigation districts in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 53 Irrigation water supply for the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, 2001-2003 53 Agricultural demand in select basins in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, 1991-2003 55 Yuma area drainage wells and conduit systems 60 Butler Valley Basin Geographic Features 83 Butler Valley Basin Land Ownership 85 Butler Valley Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 87 Butler Valley Basin Surface Water Conditions 91 Butler Valley Basin Groundwater Conditions 95 Butler Valley Basin Hydrographs 96 Butler Valley Basin Well Yields 97 Butler Valley Basin Water Quality Conditions 99 Butler Valley Basin Cultural Water Demands 103 Gila Bend Basin Geographic Features 113 Gila Bend Basin Land Ownership 115 Gila Bend Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 118 Hydrograph of annual flows for Gila River below Gillespie Dam (#9519500), water years 1960-2003 120 Gila Bend Basin Surface Water Conditions 124 Gila Bend Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and vi DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.2-7 Figure 7.2-8 Figure 7.2-9 Figure 7.2-10 Figure 7.2-11 Figure 7.2-12 Figure 7.3-1 Figure 7.3-2 Figure 7.3-3 Figure 7.3-4 Figure 7.3-5 Figure 7.3-6 Figure 7.3-7 Figure 7.3-8 Figure 7.3-9 Figure 7.3-10 Figure 7.4-1 Figure 7.4-2 Figure 7.4-3 Figure 7.4-4 Figure 7.4-5 Figure 7.4-6 Figure 7.4-7 Figure 7.4-8 Figure 7.4-9 Figure 7.4-10 Figure 7.4-11 Figure 7.5-1 Figure 7.5-2 Figure 7.5-3 Figure 7.5-4 Figure 7.5-5 Figure 7.5-6 Figure 7.5-7 Figure 7.5-8 Figure 7.5-9 Figure 7.5-10 Figure 7.6-1 Figure 7.6-2 Figure 7.6-3 Major (>10 gpm) Springs Gila Bend Basin Groundwater Conditions Gila Bend Basin Hydrographs Gila Bend Basin Well Yields Gila Bend Basin Water Quality Conditions Gila Bend Basin Cultural Water Demands Gila Bend Basin Adequacy Determinations Harquahala Basin Geographic Features Harquahala Basin Land Ownership Harquahala Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Harquahala Basin Surface Water Conditions Harquahala Basin Groundwater Conditions Harquahala Basin Hydrographs Harquahala Basin Well Yields Harquahala Basin Water Quality Conditions Harquahala Basin Cultural Water Demand Harquahala Basin Adequacy Determinations Lower Gila Basin Geographic Features Lower Gila Basin Land Ownership Lower Gila Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Lower Gila Basin Surface Water Conditions Lower Gila Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Lower Gila Basin Groundwater Conditions Lower Gila Basin Hydrographs Lower Gila Basin Well Yields Lower Gila Basin Water Quality Conditions Lower Gila Basin Cultural Water Demand Lower Gila Basin Water Adequacy Determinations McMullen Valley Basin Geographic Features McMullen Valley Basin Land Ownership McMullen Valley Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation McMullen Valley Basin Surface Water Conditions McMullen Valley Basin Groundwater Conditions McMullen Valley Basin Hydrographs McMullen Valley Basin Well Yields McMullen Valley Basin Water Quality Conditions McMullen Valley Basin Cultural Water Demand McMullen Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations Parker Basin Geographic Features Parker Basin Land Ownership Parker Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual DRAFT 126 129 130 132 138 142 144 153 155 158 162 166 167 172 176 180 182 191 194 197 202 205 208 209 213 222 227 232 241 243 246 250 254 255 259 263 267 270 279 281 vii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.6-4 Figure 7.6-5 Figure 7.6-6 Figure 7.6-7 Figure 7.6-8 Figure 7.6-9 Figure 7.6-10 Figure 7.6-11 Figure 7.7-1 Figure 7.7-2 Figure 7.7-3 Figure 7.7-4 Figure 7.7-5 Figure 7.7-6 Figure 7.7-7 Figure 7.7-8 Figure 7.7-9 Figure 7.7-10 Figure 7.8-1 Figure 7.8-2 Figure 7.8-3 Figure 7.8-4 Figure 7.8-5 Figure 7.8-6 Figure 7.8-7 Figure 7.8-8 Figure 7.9-1 Figure 7.9-2 Figure 7.9-3 Figure 7.9-4 Figure 7.9-5 Figure 7.9-6 Figure 7.9-7 Figure 7.10-1 Figure 7.10-2 Figure 7.10-3 Figure 7.10-4 Figure 7.10-5 Precipitation Parker Basin Surface Water Conditions Parker Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Parker Basin Groundwater Conditions Parker Basin Hydrographs Parker Basin Well Yields Parker Basin Water Quality Conditions Parker Basin Cultural Water Demand Parker Basin Adequacy Determinations Ranegras Plain Basin Geographic Features Ranegras Plain Basin Land Ownership Ranegras Plain Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Ranegras Plain Basin Surface Water Conditions Ranegras Plain Basin Groundwater Conditions Ranegras Plain Basin Hydrographs Ranegras Plain Basin Well Yields Ranegras Plain Basin Water Quality Conditions Ranegras Plain Basin Cultural Water Demand Ranegras Plain Basin Adequacy Determinations San Simon Wash Basin Geographic Features San Simon Wash Basin Land Ownership San Simon Wash Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation San Simon Wash Basin Surface Water Conditions San Simon Wash Basin Groundwater Conditions San Simon Wash Basin Well Yields San Simon Wash Basin Water Quality San Simon Wash Basin Cultural Water Demand Tiger Wash Basin Geographic Features Tiger Wash Basin Land Ownership Tiger Wash Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Tiger Wash Basin Surface Water Conditions Tiger Wash Basin Groundwater Conditions Tiger Wash Basin Hydrographs Tiger Wash Basin Water Quality Western Mexican Drainage Basin Geographic Features Western Mexican Drainage Basin Land Ownership Western Mexican Drainage Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Western Mexican Drainage Basin Surface Water Conditions Western Mexican Drainage Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs viii 284 288 290 293 294 296 300 304 307 317 319 321 325 329 330 332 336 340 342 351 353 356 360 364 365 369 373 383 385 387 391 395 396 398 411 413 416 420 422 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.10-6 Figure 7.10-7 Figure 7.10-8 Figure 7.10-9 Figure 7.11-1 Figure 7.11-2 Figure 7.11-3 Figure 7.11-4 Figure 7.11-5 Figure 7.11-6 Figure 7.11-7 Figure 7.11-8 Figure 7.11-9 Figure 7.11-10 Figure 7.11-11 Figure 7.11-12 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Groundwater Conditions Western Mexican Drainage Basin Hydrographs Western Mexican Drainage Basin Well Yields Western Mexican Drainage Basin Water Quality Conditions Yuma Basin Geographic Features Yuma Basin Land Ownership Yuma Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Hydrograph of annual flows for Colorado River at Yuma Station (# 952100), water years 1904-1965 Yuma Basin Surface Water Conditions Yuma Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Yuma Basin Groundwater Conditions Yuma Basin Hydrographs Yuma Basin Well Yields Yuma Basin Water Quality Conditions Yuma Basin Cultural Water Demand Yuma Basin Water Adequacy Determinations DRAFT 425 426 427 429 441 443 446 448 451 453 456 457 459 464 468 479 ix Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 TABLES Table 7.0-1 Table 7.0-2 Table 7.0-3 Table 7.0-4 Table 7.0-5 Table 7.0-6 Table 7.0-7 Table 7.0-8 Table 7.0-9 Table 7.0-10 Table 7.0-11 Table 7.0-12 Table 7.0-13 Table 7.0-14 Table 7.0-15 Table 7.0-16 Table 7.0-17 Table 7.0-18 Table 7.1-1 Table 7.1-2 Table 7.1-3 Table 7.1-4 Table 7.1-5 Listed threatened and endangered species in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area BLM Wilderness areas in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 2000 Census population of basins and Indian reservations in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Communities in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 Water adequacy determinations in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Arizona v. California Decree accounting of the consumptive use of Colorado River water in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area (in acre-feet/year) Storage facilities in the Harquahala Basin Active contamination sites in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Lower Colorado River Planning Area average cultural water demand by sector (2001-2003) Average annual municipal water demand in the Lower Colorado River Planning area (2001-2003) in acre-feet Water providers serving a minimum of 500 acre-feet of water per year, excluding effluent, in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Golf course demand in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area (c. 2006) Agricultural demand in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Industrial demand in selected years in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area  Water resource issues ranked by 2003 survey respondents in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Groundwater level trends reported by 2004 survey respondents by groundwater basin Water resource issues ranked by 2004 survey respondents in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Number of 2004 survey respondents, by groundwater basin, that ranked the survey water resource issues a moderate or major concern Climate Data for the Butler Valley Basin Streamflow Data for the Butler Valley Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Butler Valley Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Butler Valley Basin Springs in the Butler Valley Basin x 22 25 28 29 31 33 39 42 45 47 48 49 54 62 67 68 68 69 86 89 90 90 92 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.1-6 Table 7.1-7 Table 7.1-8 Table 7.1-9 Table 7.1-10 Table 7.2-1 Table 7.2-2 Table 7.2-3 Table 7.2-4 Table 7.2-5 Table 7.2-6 Table 7.2-7 Table 7.2-8 Table 7.2-9 Table 7.2-10 Table 7.3-1 Table 7.3-2 Table 7.3-3 Table 7.3-4 Table 7.3-5 Table 7.3-6 Table 7.3-7 Table 7.3-8 Table 7.3-9 Table 7.3-10 Table 7.4-1 Table 7.4-2 Table 7.4-3 Table 7.4-4 Table 7.4-5 Table 7.4-6 Table 7.4-7 Table 7.4-8 Table 7.4-9 Table 7.4-10 Table 7.5-1 Table 7.5-2 Table 7.5-3 Table 7.5-4 Table 7.5-5 Table 7.5-6 Table 7.5-7 Table 7.5-8 Table 7.5-9 Table 7.5-10 Groundwater Data for the Butler Valley Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Butler Valley Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Butler Valley Basin Effluent Generation in the Butler Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Butler Valley Basin Climate Data for the Gila Bend Basin Streamflow Data for the Gila Bend Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Gila Bend Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Gila Bend Basin Springs in the Gila Bend Basin Groundwater Data for the Gila Bend Basin Water Quality in the Gila Bend Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Gila Bend Basin Effluent Generation in the Gila Bend Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Gila Bend Basin Climate Data for the Harquahala Basin Streamflow Data for the Harquahala Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Harquahala Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Harquahala Basin Springs and Streams in the Harquahala Basin Groundwater Data for the Harquahala Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Harquahala Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Harquahala Basin Effluent Generation in the Harquahala Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Harquahala Basin Climate Data for the Lower Gila Basin Streamflow Data for the Lower Gila Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Lower Gila Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Lower Gila Basin Springs in the Lower Gila Basin Groundwater Data for the Lower Gila Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower Gila Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Lower Gila Basin Effluent Generation in the Lower Gila Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Lower Gila Basin Climate Data for the McMullen Valley Basin Streamflow Data for the McMullen Valley Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the McMullen Valley Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the McMullen Valley Basin Springs in the McMullen Valley Basin Groundwater Data for the McMullen Valley Basin Water Qualiy Exceedences in the McMullen Valley Basin Cultural Water Demands in the McMullen Valley Basin Effluent Generation in the McMullen Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations in the McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 94 98 101 102 104 117 121 122 123 125 128 134 140 141 143 157 160 160 161 163 165 174 178 179 181 196 199 200 201 203 207 215 224 225 229 245 248 248 249 251 253 261 265 266 269 xi Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-1 Table 7.6-2 Table 7.6-3 Table 7.6-4 Table 7.6-5 Table 7.6-6 Table 7.6-7 Table 7.6-8 Table 7.6-9 Table 7.6-10 Table 7.7-1 Table 7.7-2 Table 7.7-3 Table 7.7-4 Table 7.7-5 Table 7.7-6 Table 7.7-7 Table 7.7-8 Table 7.7-9 Table 7.7-10 Table 7.8-1 Table 7.8-2 Table 7.8-3 Table 7.8-4 Table 7.8-5 Table 7.8-6 Table 7.8-7 Table 7.8-8 Table 7.8-9 Table 7.8-10 Table 7.9-1 Table 7.9-2 Table 7.9-3 Table 7.9-4 Table 7.9-5 Table 7.9-6 Table 7.9-7 Table 7.9-8 Table 7.9-9 Table 7.9-10 Table 7.10-1 Table 7.10-2 Table 7.10-3 Table 7.10-4 Climate Data for the Parker Basin 283 Streamflow Data for the Parker Basin 286 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Parker Basin 286 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Parker Basin 287 Springs in the Parker Basin 289 Groundwater Data for the Parker Basin 292 Water Quality Exceedences in the Parker Basin 298 Cultural Demand in the Parker Basin 302 Effluent Generation in the Parker Basin 303 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Parker Basin 306 Climate Data for the Ranegras Plain Basin 320 Streamflow Data for the Ranegras Plain Basin 323 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Ranegras Plain Basin 323 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Ranegras Plain Basin 324 Springs in the Ranegras Plain Basin 326 Groundwater Data for the Ranegras Plain Basin 328 Water Quality Exceedences in the Ranegras Plain Basin 334 Cultural Water Demands in the Ranegras Plain Basin 338 Effluent Generation in the Ranegras Plain Basin 339 Adequacy Determinations in the Ranegras Plain Basin 341 Climate Data for the San Simon Wash Basin 355 Streamflow Data for the San Simon Wash Basin 358 Flood ALERT Equipment in the San Simon Wash Basin 358 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the San Simon Wash Basin 359 Springs in the San Simon Wash Basin 361 Groundwater Data for the San Simon Wash Basin 363 Water Quality Exceedences in the San Simon Wash Basin 367 Cultural Water Demands in the San Simon Wash Basin 371 Effluent Generation in the San Simon Wash Basin 372 Adequacy Determinations in the San Simon Wash Basin 374 Climate Data for the Tiger Wash Basin 386 Streamflow Data for the Tiger Wash Basin 389 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Tiger Wash Basin 389 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Tiger Wash Basin 390 Springs in the Tiger Wash Basin 392 Groundwater Data in the Tiger Wash Basin 394 Water Quality Exceedences in the Tiger Wash Basin 397 Cultural Water Demands in the Tiger Wash Basin 400 Effluent Generation in the Tiger Wash Basin 401 Adequacy Determinations in the Tiger Wash Basin 402 Climate Data for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 415 Streamflow Data for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 418 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 418 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Western Mexican Drainage xii DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.10-5 Table 7.10-6 Table 7.10-7 Table 7.10-8 Table 7.10-9 Table 7.10-10 Table 7.11-1 Table 7.11-2 Table 7.11-3 Table 7.11-4 Table 7.11-5 Table 7.11-6 Table 7.11-7 Table 7.11-8 Table 7.11-9 Table 7.11-10 Basin Springs in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Groundwater Data for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Effluent Generation in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Water Adequacy Determinations in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Climate Data for the Yuma Basin Streamflow Data for the Yuma Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Yuma Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Yuma Basin Springs in the Yuma Basin Groundwater Data for the Yuma Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Yuma Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Yuma Basin Effluent Generation in the Yuma Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin DRAFT 419 421 424 428 431 432 433 445 449 450 450 452 455 461 466 467 470 xiii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 xiv DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 7 –LOWER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA PREFACE Volume 7, the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, is the seventh in a series of nine volumes that comprise the Arizona Water Atlas. The primary objectives in assembling the Atlas are to present an overview of water supply and demand conditions in Arizona, to provide water resource information for planning and resource development purposes and help to identify the needs of communities. The Atlas divides Arizona into seven planning areas (Figure 7.0-1). There is a separate Atlas volume for each planning area, an introductory volume composed of background information, and an executive summary volume. “Planning areas” are an organizational concept that provide for a regional perspective on supply, demand and water resource issues. A complete discussion of Atlas organization, purpose and scope is found in Volume 1. Also included in Volume 1 is general background information for the state, a description of data sources and methods of analysis for the tables and maps presented in the Atlas, and appendices that provide information on water law, management and programs, and Indian water rights claims and settlements. There are additional, more detailed data available to those presented in this volume. These data may be obtained by contacting the Arizona Department of Water Resources (Department). 7.0 Overview of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area The Lower Colorado River Planning Area is composed of eleven groundwater basins in southwestern Arizona. The planning area contains the driest and hottest portions of Arizona. Large areas of federal lands consisting of military reservations, wildlife refuges and national monuments are located in the planning area. Elevations range from over 7,700 feet in the Baboquivari Mountains along the southeastern boundary of the planning area to about 70 feet at the Colorado River where it enters Mexico. All of Yuma County and most of La Paz County (91% of the county) are contained within the planning area as well as portions of Maricopa (38%), Pima (43%) and Yavapai (1%) counties. Five Indian reservations including the Cocopah, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Gila Bend, Fort Yuma-Quechan and Tohono O’odham are located within the planning area. One of the planning area basins, Harquahala, has been designated as an Irrigation Non-expansion area (INA) due to insufficient groundwater to provide a reasonably safe supply for irrigation. Although much of the planning area is relatively sparsely populated, there are several major population centers, particularly in the Yuma area. The 2000 Census planning area population was approximately 194,100 with basin populations ranging from less than 10 in the Tiger Wash Basin to almost 153,000 in the Yuma Basin. Yuma is the largest community with over 77,000 residents in 2000. Other population centers include Fortuna Foothills and San Luis located near Yuma, Parker/ Parker Strip, Ajo, Gila Bend and Quartzsite. An average of over 3,038,400 acre-feet of water is used annually in the planning area for agricultural, Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 KAIBABPAIUTE Page Kayenta NAVAJO HAVASUPAI NAVAJO COUNTY HOPI (MOENKOPI) COCONINO COUNTY Kykotsmovi HUALAPAI MOHAVE COUNTY Bullhead City APACHE COUNTY Window Rock HOPI Peach Springs Flagstaff Kingman FORT MOJAVE YAVAPAI COUNTY Lake Havasu City HUALAPAI Sedona PRESCOTT AMA YAVAPAI-APACHE YAVAPAI-PRESCOTT JOSEPH CITY INA Holbrook ZUNI Saint Johns Prescott Pine Parker Springerville TONTO-APACHE LA PAZ COUNTY CA P COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES Payson FORT APACHE MARICOPA COUNTY HARQUAHALA INA PHOENIX AMA GILA COUNTY FORT MCDOWELL SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA Phoenix Globe SAN CARLOS APACHE CA GREENLEE COUNTY P GILA RIVER YUMA COUNTY FORT YUMA (QUECHAN) GILA BEND Florence AK-CHIN Gila Bend Clifton Safford PINAL COUNTY Yuma COCOPAH GRAHAM COUNTY CA PINAL AMA P TOHONO O'ODHAM Tucson PIMA COUNTY PASCUA YAQUI SAN XAVIER DISTRICT Benson City or Town TUCSON AMA ARI Z ON A ME X IC O Interstate Highway Central Arizona Project Aqueduct SANTA CRUZ AMA County Indian Reservation Nogales Irrigation Non-Expansion Area Arizona Planning Area Active Management Area SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 0 50 COCHISE COUNTY Sierra Vista Bisbee DOUGLAS INA Douglas 100 Miles Central Highlands Eastern Plateau Lower Colorado River Southeastern Arizona Upper Colorado River Western Plateau 2 Figure 7.0-1 Arizona Planning Areas c O ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 municipal and industrial uses (cultural water demand) - almost as much water demand as the state’s five active management areas combined. Of this total demand, approximately 1,027,250 acre-feet is well pumpage, 2,010,500 acre-feet are surface water diversions from the Colorado River, Gila River and the Central Arizona Project and about 680 acre-feet is effluent reuse. The agricultural demand sector is by far the largest with approximately 2,974,200 acre-feet of demand a year – 98% of the total demand. Average annual municipal sector demand is about 49,400 acre-feet and industrial demand is about 14,850 acre-feet. 7.0.1 Geography The Lower Colorado River Planning Area encompasses about 17,200 square miles (sq. mi.) and includes the Butler Valley, Gila Bend, Harquahala, Lower Gila, McMullen Valley, Parker, Ranegras Plain, San Simon Wash, Tiger Wash, Western Mexican Drainage and Yuma basins. Basin boundaries, counties and prominent cities, towns and places are shown in Figure 7.0-2. The planning area is bounded on the north by the Bill Williams Basin in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area, on the east by the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson Active Management Areas (AMA), on the south by the international boundary with Mexico and on the west by the State of California and the international boundary. The planning area includes all or part of four watersheds, which are discussed in Section 7.0.2. The Cocopah Indian Reservation (10 sq. mi.) and the Gila Bend Indian Reservation (16.3 sq. mi.) are entirely within the planning area. Approximately 86% (391 sq. mi.) of the Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation, 57% (2,471 sq. mi.) of the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation, and 4% (3 sq. mi.) of the Fort Yuma-Quechan Indian Reservation are also located within the planning area (Figure 7.0-1). The Gila Bend and Tohono O’odham reservations are two of the four land bases that make up the Tohono O’odham Nation. Comparable in size to the state of Connecticut, the Nation is the second largest Indian reservation in the United States. The entire planning area is within the Basin and Range physiographic province characterized by northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges separated by broad alluvial valleys (See Volume 1, Figure 1-2). The planning area is relatively low elevation – generally less than 3,500 feet. Higher elevation mountain ranges occur along part of the northern boundary and in the Baboquivari Mountains that form the southeastern boundary where elevations rise to over 7,700 feet. The lowest elevation is about 70 feet where the Colorado River enters Mexico at the Southerly International Boundary (SIB) in the Yuma Basin. The basin with the largest elevational range is the San Simon Wash Basin with a range of 1,650 to 7,730 feet. A unique geographic feature of the planning area is the arid climate, which has shaped its topography and surface water characteristics. In the more arid western part of the planning area, the geography consists of widely-scattered, small mountain ranges of mostly barren rock and broad, flat valleys (or plains). A number of groundwater basins in the planning area take their name from this geographic feature, e.g. Butler Valley, McMullen Valley and Ranegras Plain. Other examples of major valleys and plains are the Mohawk Valley in the Lower Gila Basin and the La Posa Plain in the Parker Basin. Relatively large areas of sand dunes occur south of Yuma and west of the Gila and Tinajas Altas Mountains in an ancient river terrace. To the southeast, the terrain contains more numerous mountain ranges and narrower valleys with higher rainfall and more plant diversity and density Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 4 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 (ASDM, 2007a). With the exception of the Colorado River, there are no perennial streams in the planning area. The Gila River was historically perennial for most of its length but by the beginning of the 20th century the effects of farming and construction of dams both upstream and within the planning area caused cessation of perennial flows (Tellman, et al., 1997). Broad sandy washes are the main surface water feature in the planning area, flowing only in response to significant precipitation events 7.0.2 Hydrology1 Groundwater Hydrology The groundwater basins of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area are composed of alluvial valleys with significant volumes of groundwater in storage. Basins adjacent to the Colorado River were categorized by Anderson, et al., (1992) as Colorado River basins. Colorado River infiltration was historically the main source of inflow to aquifers in these basins. Other basins in the planning area receive minimal groundwater inflow due to the aridity of the area. These other basins were categorized by Anderson, et al., (1992) as “west” basins. The geology of the Colorado River Basins and west basins are also somewhat different and are described below. More detailed information on groundwater level changes, water quality, well yields, depth to water, groundwater in storage, groundwater recharge and other groundwater conditions are found in the individual basin sections. Colorado River Basins Colorado River Basins include the Parker and Yuma basins. In these basins the direction and occurrence of groundwater are influenced by the amount of streamflow in the Colorado River, which supplies the largest portion of groundwater recharge. Stream alluvium occurs along the Colorado River and its tributary washes and groundwater in the alluvium is hydraulically connected to the river. In general, the aquifer consists of recent stream alluvium overlying older, more cemented basin fill deposits, which in turn overlie the Bouse Formation. The Bouse Formation consists of two zones. The upper zone is composed of medium to coarse-grained sand which can yield moderate amounts of groundwater under unconfined conditions. The lower zone contains fine-grained sediments which produce limited amounts of groundwater. Groundwater is found under confined (artesian) conditions in this lower zone. A fanglomerate unit (composed primarily of cemented gravel and thin basalt flows) underlies the Bouse Formation and can yield moderate amounts of groundwater. (Anderson, et al., 1992) Parker Basin In the Parker Basin along the Colorado River, groundwater occurs under confined conditions in the Bouse Formation and fanglomerate unit and under unconfined conditions in alluvial deposits. The recent stream alluvium consists of silt, sand and gravel deposits and groundwater in these deposits is hydraulically connected to the river. In the eastern portion of the Parker Basin, groundwater is found in smaller amounts under unconfined conditions. In this area, groundwater flows toward 1 Except as noted, information in this section is taken from the Arizona Water Resources, Asessment , Volume II, ADWR (August, 1994). Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 the Colorado River along stream courses. Elsewhere, groundwater flows away from the River or parallel to it. Groundwater quality is generally good in the Parker Basin although arsenic, fluoride, nitrate and organic compounds at concentrations exceeding the Drinking Water Standard have been measured in wells. Most water quality measurements have been made in the Quartzsite area where septic tanks have caused nitrate contamination of groundwater. Yuma Basin Cenozoic basin fill is the primary aquifer in the Yuma Basin. Thickness of the basin fill may exceed 16,000 feet in some areas but only the upper 2,000 to 2,500 feet is considered hydrologically important because of its excellent transmissive properties. This aquifer is subdivided into three zones. In descending order these are the upper fine-grained zone, the coarse-gravel zone and the wedge zone. The upper zone includes younger alluvium and the uppermost deposits of older alluvium. Little water is pumped from this zone although beneath irrigated areas, the water table lies within this zone. The middle, coarse-gravel zone is the principal water producing unit in the Yuma basin. Depths to the coarse-gravel zone begin at about 100 feet in the Colorado and Gila River valleys and at about 180 feet below land surface beneath Yuma Mesa. Throughout most of the Yuma basin the wedge zone underlies the coarse-gravel zone and overlies the Bouse formation. The wedge zone is a major water-bearing deposit and consists of interbedded sands, gravel and cobbles. Depth to the top of this zone is about 160 feet near Laguna Dam and 300 feet in the southern Yuma Valley (Overby, 1997). The underlying Bouse Formation is a potential source of groundwater but units that underlie this formation (marine sedimentary rocks and volcanic rocks) are highly mineralized and deep and are not utilized. Prior to development, nearly all groundwater recharge was from the Colorado and Gila Rivers through direct channel infiltration and annual flooding. The general groundwater flow pattern was from the Colorado and Gila Rivers southward under Yuma Mesa. A significant source of groundwater recharge now comes from percolation of excess water applied to crops. Irrigation water in excess of crop requirements is applied to reduce salt accumulation in the root-zone. A groundwater mound has developed under Yuma Mesa, as a result of agricultural irrigation and because groundwater flow away from the area is insufficient to drain rising water levels. This mound and rising groundwater levels in the Yuma area have affected groundwater flow patterns. In the western part of the basin, groundwater flow is now generally toward the Colorado River from Imperial Dam to the Northerly International Boundary (NIB). South of the mound, groundwater flow is generally south toward the natural drainage, but there also is a component of flow now toward the Colorado River and under the river toward the Mexicali Valley in Mexico (Dickinson, et al., 2006). In the eastern part of the Yuma Basin, groundwater moves from northwest to southeast across the Yuma Desert and exits the basin into Mexico east of the Algodones Fault (Overby, 1997). The Algodones Fault trends northwest to southeast across the basin south of Yuma and is a barrier to groundwater movement as reflected in water levels on either side of the fault. Groundwater levels in the basin are also influenced by water management activities. The “242 Well Field and Lateral” is located east of San Luis in a 5-mile wide strip of land and consists of 21 wells that intercept part of the groundwater flow moving south into Mexico from Yuma Mesa. 6 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Irrigation drainage water is a component of this groundwater flow. Water pumped from the well field is delivered to Mexico through the 242 Lateral and other laterals to meet international treaty obligations for Colorado River water deliveries. This activity, as well as groundwater pumping in Mexico, lowers groundwater levels in private wells in the vicinity of the wellfield (USBOR, 2007a). Ground water quality varies across the Yuma Basin with elevated concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), arsenic, lead, agricultural pesticides, nitrate and volatile organic compounds in some areas (see Table 7.11-10). Groundwater was originally more similar in chemical composition to its source waters (Colorado and Gila rivers), but the quality has been altered by more than one hundred years of irrigation (Overby, 1997). West Basins West basins include Butler Valley, Gila Bend, Harquahala, Lower Gila, McMullen Valley, Ranegras Plain, San Simon Wash, Tiger Wash and Western Mexican Drainage basins. Groundwater inflows and outflows are small in these basins and there are no perennial streams. Groundwater inflows consist of minor amounts of mountain front recharge and stream infiltration. Basins are composed of a relatively thin, heterogeneous layer of upper basin fill underlain by lower basin fill. The lower basin fill consists of a unit of primarily fine-grained material underlain by a medium to coarse grained unit. Pre-Basin and Range sediments underlie the basin fill. Stream alluvium deposits occur along the lower Gila River and may be locally productive water-bearing sediments (Anderson, et al., 1992). Butler Valley Basin Butler Valley Basin contains basin fill deposits that make up the principal aquifer. These deposits range from about 500 feet in the southwest area to nearly 1,500 feet thick in the central portion of the basin. The valley is surrounded by mountains and some groundwater may be found along the basin margins in thin alluvium and in volcanic, granitic, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. A 1½-mile wide area bordered by mountains where Cunningham Wash exits the basin is known as the Narrows. Groundwater is found under confined conditions northeast of the Narrows in T7N, R15W and confined conditions may occur in other areas due to the presence of clay layers. Groundwater flow is generally from northeast to southwest (Oram, 1987). Groundwater quality is generally good with locally high fluoride and arsenic concentrations in some areas. Gila Bend Basin Basin fill material is the principal aquifer in the Gila Bend Basin. Groundwater occurs primarily under unconfined conditions, but there are several areas where fine-grained layers in the alluvium create either underlying confined conditions or overlying perched water-table conditions as a result of percolation of irrigation water. Water levels in wells measured in 2003-2004 ranged from 34 feet in a well along the mountain front to almost 640 feet east of Gila Bend. Groundwater flow direction is generally from the Gila Bend Mountains east to the Gila River in the area north of Gila Bend. In the center of the basin, groundwater movement is toward the southwest (see Figure 7.2-6). Groundwater pumpage historically caused several cones of depression to form, with the largest cone north of Gila Bend and parallel to the Gila River. As shown in Figure 7.2-6 water level decline are still significant (>30 feet) in wells in this area. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Groundwater is recharged primarily from Gila River flow events and when river water is impounded behind Painted Rock Dam. Some recharge also occurs from infiltration of irrigation water, underflow from the Gila River and tributaries into the basin and precipitation. Groundwater quality is generally poor across the basin with many measurements of arsenic and fluoride concentrations meeting or exceeding drinking water standards. High concentrations of TDS and nitrate have also been detected (see Table 7.2-7). Harquahala Basin Groundwater in the Harquahala Basin is found primarily in basin fill material composed of heterogeneous deposits of clay, silt, sand and gravel. The basin fill may be as much as 5,000 feet thick near Centennial. Groundwater is generally unconfined, although clay layers can cause semiconfined to confined conditions. Clay layers also cause perched water-table conditions in the eastcentral and southeastern parts of the basin from percolation of irrigation water. In the southeastern part of the basin the basin fill consists of coarse deposits of sand and gravel. North of T1S, finegrained beds primarily composed of clay overly the coarse deposits. Wells in this area penetrate the fine-grained sequence and withdraw water from the underlying coarse-grained sequence. The fine-grained beds become thicker towards the northwest and grade into an alternating sequence of fine-grained and coarse-grained layers that overlie a conglomerate that begins at a depth of 800 to 850 feet below land surface (Hedley, 1990). Reportedly, the best well yields occur from this alternating sequence in the west-central part of the basin. Groundwater recharge is negligible, coming primarily from infiltration of runoff in Centennial Wash. There may also be underflow from McMullen Valley Basin to the north. Seepage and infiltration of water from the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal, which runs west to east across the southern part of the basin, may be another source of recharge. Well pumpage caused the Harquahala Basin to be severely overdrafted from the 1950s through the mid 1980s, resulting in large water level declines and formation of a cone of depression in the south central portion of the basin. Prior to the 1950s groundwater moved from northwest to the southeast and exited where Centennial Wash leaves the basin. Introduction of CAP water in place of groundwater pumping has allowed groundwater levels to rise by more than 30 feet in a number of wells (see Figure 7.3-6). The Harquahala Basin was designated as an INA in 1984 pursuant to A.R.S. § 45-432 to prevent new lands from being brought into agricultural production. However, under A.R.S. § 45-555 groundwater may be withdrawn and transported from the basin to an initial active management area (such as the adjacent Phoenix AMA) under specific circumstances including a provision that groundwater levels not decline by an average of more than ten feet per year. Groundwater quality is generally suitable for irrigation purposes, but elevated TDS, fluoride, arsenic and other constituent concentrations in some wells require treatment to meet drinking water standards. 8 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Lower Gila Basin Groundwater in the Lower Gila Basin occurs in both recent stream alluvium and basin fill. The stream alluvium consists of sand, gravel and boulders in the larger washes and the floodplain of the Gila River. The thickness of the stream alluvium ranges from 10 feet in smaller washes to 110 feet in the Gila River floodplain. The basin fill consists of three units. The upper sandy unit is composed of sand and gravel with some silt and clay layers. This unit is typically 200 to 380 feet thick. The middle fine-grained unit contains primarily silts and clays with occasional thin sand and gravel beds. The middle unit ranges from 250 to 750 feet thick. The lower coarse-grained unit is composed of coarse sand and gravel and contains some well-cemented zones. The thickness of this unit is variable. Well yields exceeding 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) are commonly found in the vicinity of the Gila River, southeast of Dateland and north of Hyder. Groundwater development in the eastern part of the Lower Gila Basin is in the broad alluvial plains that border the Gila River, where the main aquifer is the upper sandy unit in the basin fill. Groundwater is primarily unconfined. Historically, cones of depression occurred in irrigated areas north of Hyder, east of Dateland and in the Palomas Plain west of Hyder. Some historic groundwater level declines were as much as 15 feet per year. Recent data show more stable water level conditions in measured wells in the eastern part of the basin (see Figure 7.4-6). In the western part of the basin, groundwater levels in the Gila River floodplain historically ranged from 10 to 20 feet below land surface and the streambed alluvium was the primary source of groundwater. As irrigation activity increased in the 1930s, groundwater levels declined and salinity increased. To provide a dependable water supply for irrigation, Colorado River water was brought to the area in 1952 and groundwater pumping for irrigation ceased. Infiltration of excess irrigation water to the stream alluvium aquifer raised water levels, necessitating the need for a system of drainage wells to maintain groundwater levels below crop root zones and canals to transport the drainage water out of the basin. Groundwater recharge is primarily from infiltration of runoff in washes and the Gila River floodplain. Underflow from the Painted Rock Dam on the eastern basin boundary and releases from the dam during floods also contributes to groundwater recharge. Water releases from Painted Rock Dam in 1975 resulted in an estimated 59,500 acre-feet of recharge. In the far western part of the basin, infiltration of excess irrigation water is the largest source of recharge. Groundwater flow directions have been impacted by irrigation pumpage at some locations in the basin, for example east of Dateland where a cone of depression exists (see Figure 7.4-6). Prior to development, groundwater flow was from north and southeast toward the Gila River and then downstream to the southwest. Infiltration of irrigation water in the western part of the basin has created groundwater mounds in the floodplain aquifer which affect groundwater flow. Groundwater quality varies in the eastern part of the basin with elevated fluoride concentrations reported at a number of wells. In the western part of the basin, the quality of groundwater in the Gila River floodplain is unsuitable for most uses, with elevated TDS concentrations common as well as fluoride and arsenic. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 9 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 McMullen Valley Basin The principal aquifer in the McMullen Valley basin is alluvial-fan deposits in the basin fill. These deposits underlie most of the valley floor, varying in thickness from 230 feet in the WendenSalome area to 3,100 feet north of Aguila. Most large irrigation wells tap into this unit. Fine grained lake-bed deposits of low permeability overlie the alluvial fan deposits in the central and lower parts of the valley. These deposits range in thickness from 150 feet southwest of Wenden to about 1,100 feet northeast of Wenden. Because of their relatively low permeability, the lake-bed deposits may impede downward percolation of water, creating a perched aquifer. Stream alluvium has been deposited by Centennial Wash and its tributaries and is composed of silt, sand and clay. This unit is 50 feet thick in the lower end of the basin, 100 feet thick in the Wenden-Salome area, and over 450 feet thick north of Aguila. There has been some groundwater development in the stream alluvium for domestic and stock use, but irrigation pumpage has dewatered the unit in the Aguila area (Remick, 1981). The basal unit of the basin fill is a conglomerate present at a depth of about 850 to 1,600 feet below land surface and is largely unexplored. Fluoride, arsenic and nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards are found at wells throughout the basin. Elevated concentrations of nitrate have been measured in a number of wells near Salome (see Table 7.5-7). Ranegras Plain Basin Groundwater in the Ranegras Plain Basin occurs primarily in older (Tertiary) basin fill deposits composed of clay, volcanics, conglomerate and smaller amounts of sand and gravel. Although yields in some wells are relatively low due to the presence of clays, yields from large diameter wells reach 4,000 gpm with a median yield of 1,100 gpm (Table 7.7-6). The thickness of the basin fill deposit is not well known but is at least about 1,500 feet northwest of Vicksburg. The younger (Quaternary) alluvium, which includes stream alluvium, overlies the basin fill and is composed primarily of sand and gravel with a thickness of less than a few hundred feet. Perched groundwater occurs in the central part of T6N, R16W and in Sections 9 and 10 of T5N, R16W where water levels are 10 to 60 feet higher than the surrounding area. (Johnson, 1990) Groundwater flow is generally to the northwest toward the community of Bouse but agricultural groundwater withdrawals have created a cone of depression southwest of Vicksburg (see Figure 7.7-6). Natural groundwater recharge is from infiltration of runoff in Bouse Wash, Cunningham Wash and along mountain fronts. About 32 miles of the CAP canal runs through the northeastern portion of the basin and may contribute 2,000 to 3,000 acre-feet of recharge a year. (Johnson, 1990) Groundwater quality is generally poor with elevated TDS concentrations measured in a number of wells. Of 48 wells measured between 1984 and 1989, only five wells had TDS levels below the secondary maximum contaminant level of 500 milligrams per liter recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The highest TDS concentrations were measured in the north-central part of the basin (Johnson, 1990). Water quality measurements taken between 1979 and 2000 also show a number of wells with elevated fluoride and arsenic concentrations (Table 7.7-7). 10 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 San Simon Wash Basin Basin fill comprises the principal aquifer in the San Simon Wash Basin. The thickness of the basin fill ranges from near zero at the mountain fronts to over 8,000 feet near the international boundary. Four sedimentary units have been identified in the basin. Alluvial-fan deposits occur on the basin perimeter and vary in depth and well yield. Streambed alluvium consisting of sand, gravel and boulders occurs along stream channels and may yield significant volumes to wells. Deltaic deposits consisting of a sequence of clay, silt, sand and gravel are found near Papago Farms (T19S, R1E) where deposits may be 800 feet thick and well yields are high (Figure 7.8-6). Lakebed deposits consisting of thick sequences of fine-bedded silts and clays extend to depths of more than 1,000 feet. Wells drilled into these lakebed deposits in the center of the basin generally yield less than 50 gpm. Groundwater occurs under unconfined conditions in the basin. Depth to water averages about 300 feet below land surface and well yields appear to be highest at depths of 400 to 700 feet. Groundwater flow is generally toward the southwest, then south into Mexico. (Hollett, 1985) Elevated arsenic concentrations are found in groundwater south of Pisinimo and near the international boundary and may occur in the lake-bed deposits in the center of the basin. Fluoride concentrations that equal or exceed drinking water standards occur in the area around Papago Farms and the international boundary (Table 7.8-7). Tiger Wash Basin Tiger Wash Basin is a shallow, alluvial basin composed of heterogeneous deposits of clay, silt, sand and gravel that are likely less than 1,000 feet thick. There are few wells in the basin with recent water level depths ranging from 29 feet to 219 feet below land surface (Figure 7.9-6). There appears to be a groundwater divide near the center of the basin from which groundwater flows to the southwest and to the northeast (Hedley, 1990). Two water quality exceedences have been reported in basin wells, with concentrations of arsenic and nitrate that equal or exceed the drinking water standard (Table 7.9-7). Western Mexican Drainage Basin The Western Mexican Drainage Basin contains broad alluvial-filled valleys consisting of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt and clay deposits that make up the main water-bearing unit. Groundwater flow is toward Mexico. Water levels varied from 27 to 237 feet below land surface at wells measured in 2003-2004 and levels appear to be declining near Lukeville, likely due to development in the Sonoyta area of Sonora, Mexico. Well yields are generally less than 100 gpm. Water quality data collected between 1976 and 1988 along the international boundary west of Lukeville show concentrations of fluoride, arsenic and lead that equal or exceed the drinking water standard (Table 7.10-7). Surface Water Hydrology The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) divides and subdivides the United States into successively smaller hydrologic units based on hydrologic features. These units are classified into four levels. From largest to smallest these are: regions, subregions, accounting units and cataloging units. A hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two digits for each level in the system is used to identify Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 11 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 any hydrologic area (Seaber et al., 1987). A 6-digit code corresponds to accounting units, which are used by the USGS for designing and managing the National Water Data Network. There are all or portions of four watersheds in the planning area at the accounting unit level: Lower Colorado River below Lake Mead; Lower Gila River below Painted Rock Dam (all); Agua Fria River-Lower Gila River; and the Rio Sonoyta (Figure 7.0-3). More detailed information on stream flow, springs, reservoirs and general surface water characteristics are found in the individual basin sections. Lower Colorado Below Lake Mead This watershed extends north to Hoover Dam and includes all or parts of three basins in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area (see Volume 4, Figure 4.0-3). Within the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, all or parts of Butler Valley, Ranegras Plain, Parker, Harquahala, Lower Gila and Yuma basins are included in the watershed. The Colorado River is the only perennial surface water in the entire watershed. Within the planning area, the river flows for about 200 miles south of Parker Dam to Mexico at the Southerly International Boundary. There are many diversions and several dams along the Colorado River. Dams include Imperial, Laguna and Morelos. There are major diversions from Imperial Dam to the All-American Canal, which delivers agricultural water to California and to the Gila Gravity Canal for use in Arizona. Drainages to the Colorado River in the planning area are ephemeral and contribute little to river flow with the exception of the Gila River during flood events. Dam construction and diversions have fundamentally altered flow in the Colorado River, including the portion in the planning area. Historically, the Colorado was a broad, meandering, unpredictable, sediment-laden watercourse, with annual flooding and frequent changes in the configuration of the channel. It sometimes overtopped its banks and flowed west to the Salton Sink, forming intermittent lakes. In the early 1900s water began to be diverted from the Colorado River via the Imperial Canal to irrigate California’s Imperial Valley. When the canal filled with silt, a cut was made in the west bank of the river to temporarily allow water to flow into the valley. In 1905, massive flooding on the Colorado overtopped this diversion canal and diverted the river toward the Salton Sink (Salton Sea Authority, 2000). This flow flooded the valley, destroying farms and towns and began filling the Salton Sink, creating the modern Salton Sea. Flow continued for 18 months and for a time the Colorado ceased flowing into Mexico (Tellman et al., 1997). There were concerns that if the cutback erosion in the flow channel reached the Colorado River, it would be permanently diverted to the Salton Sink. In 1907 the Southern Pacific Railroad, which had substantial business interests in the region, repaired the gap in the diversion canal and the river resumed its natural course toward the Gulf of California. Prior to dam construction on the Colorado River, the river flowed to the Gulf of California, forming a delta with a maze of lagoons and dense riparian habitat. Today only about 420,000 acres of the original two million acre delta survives and the river reached the sea only about half of the years between 1981 and 2002. Since 1979, an average of about 100,000 acre-feet of salty drainage water from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District is delivered annually to the eastern side of the delta, creating the Cienega de Santa Clara (Glenn, et al., 2004). There are no major (>10gpm) or minor (1-10 gpm) springs in the entire watershed, and only 15 to 16 smaller springs, primarily in the Parker Basin. 12 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 13 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Lower Gila River Below Painted Rock Dam This watershed includes almost all of the Lower Gila Basin and part of the Yuma Basin. Major surface water drainages are the Gila River, Tenmile Wash and San Cristobal Wash (see Figure 7.0-3). The Gila River drains the eastern and central parts of the planning area and extends 150 miles from Gillespie Dam (located where the Gila River enters the planning area in the Gila Bend Basin) to the confluence with the Colorado River in the Yuma Basin. The river originates in New Mexico and flows 600 miles from east to west across Arizona. The entire Gila River Watershed drains about 57,900 square miles and is the largest watershed in Arizona, covering over half of the state’s total land area (Tellman, et al., 1997). Historically, the Gila flowed in the planning area in the spring due to winter rain and snowmelt and in the summer following monsoon storms. Construction of upstream dams, beginning with Coolidge Dam near Florence in 1929, resulted in loss of flows and water supplies downstream. In the planning area, the Gila River flows only in response to precipitation events, irrigation return flow or releases from upstream dams. Recent sources list the river as either intermittent (AZGF, 1997) or ephemeral (ADWR, 1994a). The Gila River is a flashy stream, showing wide variations in annual flow in the planning area. There are four operating streamflow gages on the Gila River. Two gages are above Painted Rock Dam in the Agua Fria River-Lower Gila River Watershed in the Gila Bend Basin, one is in the Lower Gila Basin and one is in the Yuma Basin. All four gages have years with no flow (see Tables 7.2-2, 7.4-2 and 7.11-2). By contrast, total annual flow at the gages below Gillespie Dam and below Painted Rock Dam were over 5 million acre-feet (maf) in 1993. Further downstream near the confluence with the Colorado, the gage at the Gila River near Dome recorded a maximum annual flow of over 4.7 maf in 1993, but an annual median flow of less than 4,800 acre-feet. Construction of Gillespie Dam in 1921, and Painted Rock Dam in 1959, impounded Gila River flow in the planning area for diversion to agricultural areas and to prevent flooding downstream. Gillespie Dam was breached during January, 1993 when a 135 foot section of the dam collapsed during flooding. The same flood event filled Painted Rock Dam to full capacity of 2.5 maf, making it the largest lake in Arizona, and high volumes of spillwater caused extensive downstream damage. The reservoir is normally dry. There are no major (>10gpm) or minor (1-10 gpm) springs in the Lower Gila River Watershed below Painted Rock Dam, and only six to eight smaller springs. Agua Fria River-Lower Gila River Watershed The Agua Fria River - Lower Gila River Watershed includes the drainage areas of the Agua Fria River and the Gila River from below its confluence with the Salt River to Painted Rock Dam. Within the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, Gila Bend, Harquahala, McMullen Valley and Tiger Wash basins are included in the watershed. The Gila River is the only major watercourse (discussed above). Centennial Wash is the major tributary in the planning area and is an ephemeral stream with no streamgage data within the planning area. The only streamgage data for the watershed, other than those on the Gila River, is a discontinued gage at Sauceda Wash near Gila 14 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Bend with a maximum annual flow of about 1,100 acre-feet (see Table 7.2-2). There are no major (>10gpm) or minor (1-10 gpm) springs in the Agua Fria River-Lower Gila River Watershed, and only five to seven smaller springs, three of which are located in the Tiger Wash Basin. Rio Sonoyta Watershed The Rio Sonoyta Watershed in Arizona includes the San Simon Wash and Western Mexican Drainage basins and the south central portion of the Lower Gila Basin. Major drainages in the San Simon Wash Basin, all ephemeral, are San Cristobal Wash, San Simon Wash and Vamori Wash. Vamori Wash flows northwest to San Simon Wash, which in turn flows south to the Rio Sonoyta in Mexico. There are two active streamgages in the watershed in the San Simon Wash Basin, one at Vamori Wash at Kom Vo and one on San Simon Wash near Pisinimo. These ephemeral streams flow primarily in the summer as a result of monsoon precipitation. Annual mean flow at the Vamori Wash gage is over 6,600 acre-feet and almost 2,400 acre-feet at the San Simon gage (see Table 7.8-2). The largest ephemeral tributary to the Rio Sonoyta in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin is Aguajita Wash, located near the mountain fronts east of Quitobaquito and Cipriano Hills. The only major (>10gpm) and minor (1-10 gpm) springs in the entire planning area are found in this watershed in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin. Quitobaquito Springs are the only major springs with a combined discharge of 28 gpm. Located adjacent to the international boundary in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, the springs flow from fractured granite that forms the Quitobaquito Hills. Groundwater moves through the fractured granite and discharges in a line of springs on the southwest side of Quitobaquito Hills (Carruth, 1996). Two of the largest springs have been capped and diverted into a manmade stream channel that flows to a half-acre pond that provides habitat for the endangered Quitobaquito pupfish (Knowles, 2003). The springs are relatively warm, (a near constant 74°F), and slightly brackish. The two minor springs in the planning area are located nearby. In total there are 15 to 23 total springs in the watershed, with most located in the San Simon Wash Basin. 7.0.3 Climate2 The Lower Colorado River Planning Area is characterized by the highest average annual temperature in the state, 71.5°F, which is much warmer than the statewide average of 59.5°F. Average annual precipitation in the planning area is 4.6 inches, though totals are probably considerably higher at high elevation ranges where precipitation is not recorded. Annual precipitation totals vary widely across the planning area, from 6-9 inches at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Aguila, and Kofa Mine stations to less than 3 inches at Yuma Airport. On average, the Lower Colorado River exhibits the bi-modal precipitation seasonality characteristic of Arizona (Figure 7.0-4); however, the northwestern part of the planning area, near Parker, exhibits a stronger late winter peak, more typical of the Mohave Desert. 2 Information in this section was provided by Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), University of Arizona, December 2007. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 15 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.0-4 Average monthly precipitation and temperature from 1930-2002 Data are from the Western Regional Climate Center. Figure author: Gregg Garfin, CLIMAS. Frontal storm systems moving west-to-east, guided by the jet stream, deliver the area’s winter and spring precipitation. Summer monsoon thunderstorms deliver abundant moisture to the eastern part of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area. The planning area shows a very strong response to El Niño conditions, with winters registering wet conditions 59% of the time and dry conditions only 24% of the time. Strong El Niño years, such as 1941, 1982, 1983, 1992 and 1993, show high precipitation (Figure 7.0-5). The precipitation response to La Niña conditions is not as pronounced with dry winters occurring only 50% of the time. Neutral El Niño-Southern Oscillation conditions yield dry Lower Colorado River Planning Area winters 57% of the time – a strong indication of the extreme aridity in this region. Average annual temperatures in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area have been increasing since the 1930s, and especially rapidly since the mid-1970s (Figure 7.0-5). The long-term trend is superimposed on decadal variability generated primarily by Pacific Ocean and atmosphere variations. Decadal variations are particularly obvious in the instrumental record of precipitation. Drought conditions were present for the decades of the 1940s-1960s and since the mid-1990s; the 1980s and early 1990s were relatively wet. This part of the state exhibits Arizona’s highest year to-year precipitation variability, with especially high variability during the dry 1940s-1960s. 16 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.0-5 Average annual temperature and total annual precipitation for the Lower Colorado River Planning Area from 1930-2002 Horizontal lines are average temperature (71.5 °F) and precipitation (4.6 inches), respectively. Light lines are yearly values and highlighted lines are 5-year moving average values. Data are from the Western Regional Climate Center. Figure author: Gregg Garfin, CLIMAS. Winter precipitation records dating to 1000 A.D. estimated from tree-ring reconstructions for Arizona climate divisions show extended periods of above and below average precipitation in every century (Figure 7.0-6). A climate division is a region within a state that is generally climatically homogeneous. Arizona has been divided into seven climate divisions and most of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area is within Climate Division 5, which includes La Paz and Yuma counties. Markedly dry periods in Climate Division 5 include the late 1000s, mid-1100s, the late 1200s, late 1500s, and several shorter, but very intense, periods during the last 300 years. Winters were relatively wet during the late 1400s, early 1600s, much of the 1800s, and the early 1900s. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 17 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.0-6 Winter (November - April) precipitation departures from average 1000-1988 - Climate Division 5 Data are presented as a 20-year moving average to show variability on decadal time scales. Data: Fenbiao Ni, University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and CLIMAS. Figure author: Gregg Garfin, CLIMAS. 7.0.4 Environmental Conditions Environmental conditions reflect the geography, climate and cultural activities in an area and may be a critical consideration in water resource management and development. Discussed in this section is vegetation, protection of riparian areas through the Arizona Water Protection Fund Program, threatened and endangered species, public lands protected from development as national monuments, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, and managed waters. No instream flow claims (a non-diversionary appropriation of surface water for recreation and wildlife use) have been filed in this planning area Vegetation Information on ecoregions and biotic (vegetative) communities in the planning area are shown on Figure 7.0-7. With the exception of a very small area of Chihuhuan desert and Sierra Madre Occidental pine-oak forest along the southeastern boundary, the entire planning area is within the Sonoran Desert ecoregion. Biotic communities range from Lower Colorado River Valley Sonoran 18 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 desertscrub to Madrean evergreen woodland. Most of the planning area is covered by Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub. Madrean evergreen woodland occurs at the highest elevations of the San Simon Wash Basin in the Baboquivari Mountains where mean annual precipitation exceeds 16 inches. The woodland consists of evergreen oaks, Alligator Bark and One-seed junipers, and Mexican pinyon and transitions to semidesert grassland at lower elevation. Cacti of the semidesert grassland may extend well into the woodland. (Brown, 1982) Interior chaparral occupies mid-elevation foothill, mountain slopes and canyons in small areas along the boundary of McMullen Valley and Butler Valley Basin and along the McMullen Valley/ Harquahala/Tiger Wash basin boundaries. Interior chaparral is found in areas between about 3,500 and 6,000 feet in elevation that receive 15 to 25 inches of annual precipitation (Brown, 1982). Chaparral consists of dense shrubs that grow around the same height with occasional taller shrubs or small trees. Typical shrubby species are mountain mahogany, shrub live oak, and manzanita. Chaparral plants are well adapted to drought conditions. (AZGF, 2004) The western limit of the semidesert grassland community occurs in the eastern part of the planning area. A small area adjoins the Madrean evergreen woodland community in the Baboquivari Mountains and smaller areas exist in the central part of the San Simon Wash Basin and in eastern McMullen Valley Basin. Semidesert grasslands receive between about 10 to 17 inches of annual rainfall. Grasses were originally perennial bunch grasses with intervening areas of bare ground. Where heavily grazed, grasses have shifted to annual species where summer rainfall is low, or to low growing sod grasses where rainfall is moderate to heavy. Shrubs, cacti and herbaceous plants are commonly found in the semidesert grassland community. (Brown, 1982) Two subdivisions of the Sonoran desertscrub region exist in the planning area-the Lower Colorado River Valley subdivision and the Arizona Upland subdivision. The Lower Colorado River Valley subdivision is the hottest and driest of the Sonoran desertscrub subdivisions. There is intense competition for water, with plants widely spaced and more concentrated along drainage channels. In some areas the soil is covered by a single layer of tightly packed pebbles known as “desert pavement” that restricts plant types to ephemeral species. High concentrations of sodium in the soil below the pavement may also restrict plant growth. Sand dunes occur near Yuma and Parker. Characteristic plants include creosote bush, bursage, saltbush, and mixed, more diverse vegetation along washes and other areas with more water. These areas may include blue palo verde, ironwood and jojoba. Also commonly found in the subdivision are several types of cholla and other cacti. (Turner and Brown, 1982) The Arizona Upland subdivision borders the Lower Colorado River Valley subdivision and occurs primarily on slopes and sloping plains at elevations of 980 to over 3,000 feet where it merges with interior chaparral or semidesert grassland. This subdivision receives more precipitation than the other Sonoran desertscrub subdivisions with average annual precipitation between 8 to 16 inches. Vegetation is scrubland or low woodland in appearance with blue and foothill palo verde, ironwood, mesquite and cat-claw acacia as common tree species. Cacti are extremely important in this subdivision including saguaro, organ pipe, cholla and barrel cacti. (Turner and Brown, 1982) Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 19 20 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Bufflegrass (Pennisetum ciliare), was introduced to the United States in the 1930s as livestock forage, and since the 1980s it has spread rapidly and can now be found on the edges of roads in most of southern Arizona. It is problematic in the Sonoran Desert because it grows densely, crowding out and competing for water with native plants and it is a fire-prone perennial that alters the natural fire regime. (ASDM, 2007b) When wildfires occur, the densely growing grass spreads fire rapidly and it thrives after fires while native species do not (Brooks and Pyke, 2002). Some efforts to control the spread of bufflegrass have been successful. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument undertook a large eradication effort through yearly weeding efforts and has managed to control and largely prevent its proliferation in the area (Burns, 2007). The riparian corridor of the lower Colorado River was historically a mixture of cottonwood and willow trees with backwater wetlands. These habitats were maintained by the natural flow regime consisting of spring floods that washed salts from the banks, supported germination of tree seeds, and created seasonal wetlands (University of Arizona, 2003). In Mexico, the Colorado River Delta was historically two million acres in size and was a maze of lagoons and thickly forested. Today, only about 420,000 acres of riparian, wetland and intertidal habitat remain. This habitat is largely maintained by the delivery of irrigation drainage water from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District in Arizona. This water has flowed to the eastern side of the delta since 1979, creating the largest wetland in the Sonoran Desert, the Cienega de Santa Clara (Glenn, et al., 2004). There are reaches of riparian vegetation along the Colorado River that now consist primarily of tamarisk, mesquite and smaller areas of marsh and strand (riparian obligate plants adapted to periodic flooding, scouring, or soil deposition). There are scattered patches of cottonwood-willow along the river below Headgate Rock Dam. East of Yuma, tamarisk and strand vegetation are found along the Gila River west of highway 95. (AZGF, 1994) Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs The objective of the Arizona Water Protection Fund (AWPF) program is to provide grants for the protection and restoration of Arizona’s rivers and streams and associated riparian habitats. Six restoration projects in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area had been funded by the AWPF through 2005. Four projects were funded in the Yuma Basin for wetland and watershed restoration, exotic species control and revegetation. Two projects in the Parker Basin projects funded habitat restoration and revegetation and exotic species control. A list of projects and project types funded in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area through 2005 is found in Appendix A of this volume. A description of the program, a complete listing of all projects funded, and a reference map is found in Appendix C of Volume 1. Threatened and Endangered Species A number of listed threatened and endangered species may be present in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area. Those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as of May 2006 are shown in Table 7.0-1.3 Presence of a listed species may be a critical consideration in water resource 3 An “endangered species” is defined by the USFWS as “an animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” while a “threatened species” is “an animal or place species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 21 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-1 Listed threatened and endangered species in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Common Name Bald Eagle Threatened Endangered X Bonytail Chub Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl Elevation/Habitat Varies/Large trees or cliffs near water. X X 235 - 1,960 ft/Main stream portions of mid-sized to large rivers (both strong current and pools), usually over mud or rocks. 1,300 - 4,000 ft/Cottonwoods, willows, mesquite bosques and dry washes. California Brown Pelican X Varies/Lakes and rivers. Kearny's Blue Star X 3,685 - 4,500 ft/Canyon bottoms and sides in oak woodlands. Lesser Long-Nosed Bat X 1,190 - 7,320 ft./Desert grassland and shrubland up to oak transition. Nichol's Turk's Head Cactus X 2,400-4,100 ft./Sonoran desertscrub. Quitobaquito Pupfish X 0-4,950 ft/Small ponds and springs. Razorback Sucker X <6,000 ft./Riverine and lacustrine areas, not in fast moving water. Sonoran Pronghorn X 400 - 1,600 ft/Broad alluvial valleys separated by block-faulted mountains. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher X <8,500 ft./Cottonwood-willow and tamarisk along rivers and streams. Yuma Clapper Rail X <4,500 ft./Fresh water and brackish marshes Source: USFWS 2006 22 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 management and development in a particular area. The USFWS should be contacted for details regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA), designated critical habitat and current listings. Figure 7.0-8 LCR MSCP Reaches in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Actions related to operation of the Lower Colorado River water delivery and electrical power generation systems by both federal and non-federal entities may affect listed species and habitat or contribute to the listing of additional species in the future. The ESA directs Federal agencies to support the conservation of listed threatened and endangered species and to make sure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in adverse modification of critical habitat. To comply with the requirements of the ESA, state and federal water and power interests created the Lower Colorado River Source: Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation ProMulti-Species Conservation Program gram, 2004 (LCR MSCP). The LCR MSCP is a cooperative, Habitat Conservation Program that identifies specific measures to address the needs of 26 threatened, endangered and other species that rely on habitat associated with the lower Colorado River (USDOI, 2004). Its purposes include: 1) protection of habitat while ensuring current river water and power operations; 2) addressing the needs of listed species under the ESA; and 3) reduction of the likelihood of listing additional species along the river (USBOR, 2007b). LCR MSCP reaches 4-7 are within the planning area and their general location is shown in Figure 7.0-8. The LCR MSCP also addresses compliance with the “take” provisions of the ESA. Incidental take of a listed species, as the result of carrying out an otherwise lawful activity, is not allowed without acquiring a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The LCR MSCP documents the extent of the incidental take related to river operations and maintenance activities by both Federal and non-Federal entities and includes measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate the effect of the take (USDOI, 2004).4 Implementation of the LCR MSCP began in 2005. The program area extends from the full pool elevation of Lake Mead to the SIB with Mexico, a distance of 400 river miles and includes the historical floodplain of the Colorado River (USBOR, 2007b). The LCR MSCP is intended to serve as a coordinated and comprehensive conservation approach for a 50-year period and 4 As defined by the ESA, take means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in other conduct.” (16 U.S.C. section 1531[18]) Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 23 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 therefore includes measures for species not currently listed that may become listed in the future. Implementation of the program is funded by a partnership of state, Federal and other public and private stakeholders in Arizona, California and Nevada. The plan will create riparian, marsh and backwater habitat for six federally listed species and 20 other native species including conservation programs for razorback sucker and bonytail chub, both federally listed endangered species. Historically the “Great Valley”, what is now known as the Palo Verde Valley in California and Cibola Valley from the Parker area downstream to Cibola Lake, supported an extensive riparian woodland ecosystem and this area is a focal area for conservation measures under the LCR MSCP. Significant conservation measures intended to restore native riparian woodland habitats, once common along the lower Colorado River, have been implemented in Arizona at Cibola Valley Conservation Area (CVCA) in the Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District, Cibola National Wildlife Refuge (CNWR), and Imperial National Wildlife Refuge (INWR). Measures include planting cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and other seedlings to create habitat for riparian woodland obligate species at CVCA, CNWR, and INWR, creation of marsh habitat for Yuma clapper rail and California black rail at INWR, and creation of isolated refugia for razorback sucker and bonytail at INWR. Investigations continue on the suitability of existing backwaters for conversion into habitat suitable for razorback sucker and bonytail. In addition, experimental habitat restoration measures have been implemented at the ‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve on the Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation. National Monuments, Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas The Lower Colorado River Planning Area contains 15 wilderness areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), four National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and two National Monuments (Figure 7.0-9). Both monuments and three wildlife refuges also contain wilderness areas. In total there are 2.3 million acres of protected federal lands in the planning area, accounting for 21% of the land area. Eight BLM wilderness areas are entirely within the planning area as well as parts of seven others. Wilderness Areas are designated under the 1964 Wilderness Act to preserve and protect the designated area in its natural condition. Designated wilderness areas managed by the BLM, their size, basin location and a brief description of the area are listed in Table 7.0-2. The largest protected area in the planning area is the Cabeza Prieta NWR, the third largest refuge in the contiguous United States with an area of over 860,000 acres. Designated in 1939, it lies within the Lower Gila and Western Mexican Drainage basins and shares a 56-mile border with the Mexican state of Sonora. Most of the refuge is designated as wilderness. The refuge provides habitat for desert bighorn sheep, the endangered Sonoran pronghorn and lesser long-nosed bat, as well as 420 plant species and more than 300 kinds of wildlife. (USFWS, 2007a) The U.S. pronghorn population is estimated at around 50 animals. Cibola NWR straddles the Colorado River, with almost 13,000 acres located in the Parker Basin and the remainder in California. The refuge was established in 1964 to restore and protect historic habitat and wintering grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife. About 85% of Arizona’s 24 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-2 BLM Wilderness areas in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Acres in the Planning Area Basin Big Horn Mountains 18,000 (partial) Harquahala Eagletail Mountains 100,000 East Cactus Plain 15,000 Parker Intricate crescent dune topography and dense dunescrub vegetation known only in this area. Gibraltar Mountain 19,000 Parker Volcanic rock dissected by deep, sandy washes and rocky canyons, includes may alcoves and caves. Harcuvar Mountains 22,000 (partial) McMullen Valley & Butler Bajadas and mountains with an isolated 3,500-acre Valley "island" of interior chaparral habitat. Harquahala Mountains 23,000 Tiger Wash, McMullen & Contains 5,691-foot- high Harquahala Peak, the Harquahala highest point in southwest Arizona. Hummingbird Springs 5,500 (partial) Harquahala Includes Sugarloaf Mountain which rises steeply from the Tonopah Desert plains. Muggins Mountains 7,700 Lower Gila Rugged peaks dissected by deeply cut drainages. New Water Mountains 25,000 Ranegras Craggy spires, sheer rock outcrops, natural arches, slick rock canyons and deep sandy washes. North Maricopa Mountains* 40,000 Gila Bend Low-elevation Sonoran Desert mountain range and extensive surrounding desert plains. Rawhide Mountains 4,900 (partial) Butler Valley Low hills punctuated by numerous rugged outcrops. Signal Mountain 12,000 (partial) Lower Gila Sharp volcanic peaks, steep-walled canyons, arroyos, craggy ridges and outwash plains. South Maricopa Mountains* 40,000 (partial) Gila Bend Low-elevation Sonoran Desert mountain range and extensive surrounding desert plains. Trigo Mountains 30,000 Parker Woolsey Peak 60,000 (partial) Gila Bend & Lower Gila Total Acres 400,100 Wilderness Area Description Desert plain escarpments, hills, fissures, chimneys and narrow canyons. Large desert plain with natural arches, high spires, Harquahala, Ranegras & monoliths, jagged sawtooth ridges and numerous Lower Gila washes six to eight miles long. Sawtooth ridges and steep-sided canyons heavily dissected by washes. Sloping lava flows, basalt mesas, rugged peaks and ridges. Source: BLM 2006 * Wilderness areas are within the boundaries of a National Monument. wintering Canadian Goose population is found on the refuge. (USFWS, 2007b) Kofa NWR, at 665,400 acres, is located in the Lower Gila, Parker and Ranegras Plain basins. Established in 1939, it provides habitat for desert bighorn sheep, currently numbering 800-1,000 individuals, and protection for the California fan palm, the only native palm in Arizona (USFWS, 2007c). Most of the refuge is designated as wilderness. Imperial NWR protects wildlife habitat along 30 miles of the Colorado River in Arizona and California, including the last unchannelized section of the river before it enters Mexico. The entire refuge encompasses almost 25,800 acres, of which 15,000 acres is designated wilderness. In Arizona, refuge lands are located in the Lower Gila and Parker basins. Efforts are underway to restore wetlands, control tamarisk, plant cottonwood and willow trees, protect lakes and manage Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 25 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 26 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 marshlands and croplands to provide food and habitat for wintering migratory birds. (USFWS, 2007d) Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument preserves approximately 106,800 acres of relatively unspoiled Sonoran Desert ecosystem in the Lower Gila and Western Mexican Drainage basins. The Monument contains twenty-six species of cactus and provides habitat for the endangered Quitobaquito Pupfish and Sonoran Pronghorn. About 95% of the Monument is designated as wilderness. The United Nations designated the monument as an International Biosphere Reserve in 1976. Due to the remoteness of the area, each year thousands of people illegally enter the U.S. through the monument using unofficial roads and trails. This traffic has adversely impacted habitat including deposition of trash, damage to plants, pollution of water sources, and soil erosion. (NPS, 2007) A portion of the 496,000-acre Sonoran Desert National Monument, established by executive proclamation in 2001, is located in the Gila Bend Basin. The monument contains extensive areas of saguaro cactus forest, and archeological and historic sites. Three wilderness areas are contained within the monument boundaries. (BLM, 2007) Managed Waters Water management decisions and operations outside of the planning area affect the character of the Colorado River within the planning area. Use of Colorado River water is primarily under the jurisdiction of the federal government and was developed through a number of Congressional acts, Supreme Court Decisions, multi-state compacts and an international treaty collectively known as the “Law of the River.” More detail on management issues affecting the river are found in Section 7.0-8. Historically, the Colorado River was highly unpredictable with annual variation of 5 maf to 24 maf at its point of discharge to the Gulf of California. Sediments were carried downstream with spring floods, forming beaches and a large delta where the river met the sea. These floods often changed the course of the river. Today the river flow does not always reach the Gulf due to diversions, sediment is trapped behind dams and the river is channelized through parts of its length. Prior to development, the Colorado River delta area was one of the richest estuaries in the world. Upstream diversions have severely impacted the delta with a small remnant remaining in the Cienega de Santa Clara. This remnant has been maintained as a result of bypassed saline return flows generated by the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District. Salinity standards established by the 1944 Treaty with Mexico require that these return flows can no longer be returned to the river in Arizona. The Cienega was designated as a Biosphere Reserve in 1994 (Tellman, et al., 1997). Discussions are ongoing on how to manage and utilize return flows in the Yuma area while still sustaining the Cienega. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 27 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.0.5 Population The Lower Colorado River Planning Area is growing rapidly with a 44% population increase between 1990 and 2000. Census data for 2000 show about 194,100 residents and Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) population projections suggest that the planning area population will more than triple by 2050, to about 586,400 residents. Historic, current and projected basin populations are shown in the cultural water demand tables for each basin in Sections 7.1-7.11. The most populous basin is the Yuma Basin with 79% of the total planning area population in 2000. Several basins have population totals less than 100 residents. The 2000 Census populations for each basin and Indian reservation, listed from highest to lowest, are shown in Table 7.0-3. Table 7.0-3 2000 Census population of basins and Indian reservations in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Basin/Reservation Butler Valley Gila Bend Gila Bend Harquahala Lower Gila McMullen Valley Parker Colorado River Tribes Ranegras Plain San Simon Wash Tohono O'odham Tiger Wash Western Mexican Drainage Yuma Cocopah Fort Yuma (Quechan) 18 2,791 609 11,303 2,291 16,166 904 5,833 <10 34 152,883 2000 Census Population NA 3,389 5,833 1,025 45 Shown in Table 7.0-4 are incorporated and unincorporated communities in the planning area with 2000 Census populations greater than 1,000 and growth rates for two time periods. Communities are listed from highest to lowest population in 2000. As shown, there are a number of rapidly growing communities in the planning area. San Luis, along the international border, had the most rapid growth rate during both time periods. Fortuna Foothills, an unincorporated community east of Yuma is also growing rapidly with a 165% growth rate between 1990 and 2000. Yuma, Fortuna Foothills and Quartzsite experience a large seasonal population increase in the winter when seasonal residents arrive to enjoy the relatively warm climate. This seasonal population is not accounted for in the population estimates and projections unless these communities are listed as the primary residence. 28 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-4 Communities in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 Basin 1990 Census Pop. 2000 Census Pop. Percent Change 1990-2000 2005 Pop. Estimate Percent Change 2000-2005 Projected 2050 Pop. City of Yuma* Yuma 54,923 77,515 41% 88,775 13% 255,612 Fortuna Foothills Yuma 7,737 20,478 165% 27,437 25% 71,684 City of San Luis* Yuma 4,212 15,322 264% 22,930 33% 71,521 City of Somerton* Yuma 5,282 7,266 38% 9,750 25% 25,615 Lower Gila 2,919 3,705 27% NA NA NA Town of Quartzsite* Parker 1,876 3,354 79% 3,600 7% 5,221 Parker Strip Parker 1,646 3,302 101% 3,721 11% 6,460 Town of Parker* Parker 2,897 3,140 8% 3,280 4% 4,202 Town of Gila Bend* Gila Bend 1,747 1,980 13% 1,805 -10% NA Town of Wellton* Lower Gila 1,066 1,829 72% 1,970 7% 2,854 Parker 1,226 1,357 11% 1,390 2% 1,607 Total >1,000 85,531 139,248 63% 164,658 63% >444,775 Other 49,097 54,814 12% NA NA 141,630 Total 134,628 194,062 44% NA NA 586,406 Communities Town of Ajo Town of Ehrenberg* Source: DES 2005: www.workforce.az.gov, U.S. Census Bureau 2006 Notes: 2005 population estimates not available for unincorporated communities NA = not available * = incorporated communities Population Growth and Water Use Arizona has limited mechanisms to address the connections between land use, population growth and water supply. A legislative attempt to link growth and water management planning is the Growing Smarter Plus Act of 2000 (Act) which requires that counties with a population greater than 125,000 (2000 Census) include planning for water resources in their comprehensive plans. Of the five counties in the planning area, four fit the size criteria in 2000; Maricopa, Pima, Yavapai and Yuma. Yuma County is entirely within the planning area. The Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan provides a general overview on the quality and quantity of water in the county, including information on drinking water and distribution and wastewater management (Yuma County, 2000) Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 29 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 The Act also requires that twenty-three communities outside AMAs include a water resources element in their general plans. In the Lower Colorado River Planning Area this requirement applies to Yuma, Quartzsite, San Luis and Somerton and all communities have complied. Plans must consider water demand and water resource availability in conjunction with growth, land use and infrastructure. Beginning in 2007, all community water systems in the state were required to submit Annual Water Use Reports and System Water Plans to the Department. The reports and plans are intended to reduce community water systems’ vulnerability to drought, and to promote water resource planning to ensure that water providers are prepared to respond to water shortage conditions. In addition, the information will allow the State to provide regional planning assistance to help communities prepare for, mitigate and respond to drought. An Annual Water Use Report will be submitted each year by the systems, beginning June 1, 2007, and include information on water pumped or diverted, water received, water delivered to customers, and effluent used or received. The System Water Plan will be updated and submitted every five years and consist of three components- a Water Supply Plan, a Drought Preparedness Plan and a Water Conservation Plan. Systems serving populations greater than 1,850 were required to submit plans by January 1, 2007. Systems that serve populations less than 1,850 are required to submit plans by January 1, 2008. Plans have been submitted by the large systems of City of Yuma, Town of Parker, Ajo Improvement Company/ Phelps Dodge Corporation, City of Somerton, and Arizona Water Company-Ajo System (a small system). Water system, water supply and water demand information from these plans is presented in this document. The Department’s Water Adequacy Program also relates water supply and demand to growth to some extent, but does not control growth. Developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is sufficient water of adequate quality available for 100 years. If the supply is inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must be disclosed in promotional materials and in sales documents. Legislation adopted in June 2007 (SB 1575) authorizes a county board of supervisors to adopt a provision, by unanimous vote, which requires a new subdivision to have an adequate water supply in order for the subdivision to be approved by the platting authority. If adopted, cities and towns within the county may not approve a subdivision unless it has an adequate water supply. If the county does not adopt the provision, the legislation allows a city or town to adopt a local adequacy ordinance that requires a demonstration of adequacy before the final plat can be approved. Subdivision adequacy determinations (Water Adequacy Reports), including the reason(s) for inadequate determinations, are provided in the basin sections of this volume and are summarized for each basin in Table 7.0-5. As shown on the table, a high percentage of lots have been determined to have an adequate water supply and only basins with relatively few subdivided lots have a high percentage of inadequacy determinations. Two water providers in the planning area, Parker and the City of Yuma, are designated as having an adequate water supply for their entire service area. A service area designation exempts subdivisions from demonstrating water adequacy if served by the provider. 30 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-5 Water adequacy determinations in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Number of Subdivisions Number of Lots1 Lots w/ Adequate Detrm. Lots w/ Inadequate Determ. Approx. Percent of Lots w/ Inadequate Determ. Gila Bend 4 >89 >24 65 73% Harquahala 3 >65 >35 30 46% Lower Gila 26 2,664 2,313 351 13% McMullen Valley 9 2,030 1,904 126 6% Parker 22 >1,539 >1,279 >260 17% Ranegras Plain 4 135 26 109 81% 227 >24,579 >24,358 221 <1% Basin Yuma Source: ADWR 2005a Notes: 1 Data on number of lots are missing for some subdivisions; actual number maybe larger (>) 7.0.6 Water Supply Figure 7.0-10 Water supply utilized in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area in acre-feet Water supplies in the Lower Colorado (average annual use 2001-2003) River Planning Area include Effluent CAP groundwater, surface water, Central 680 Arizona Project water and effluent. 88,817 As shown on Figure 7.0-10, most water used is surface water diverted from the Colorado River, and to a lesser extent, the Gila River. Colorado River water is the major supply in the Lower Gila, Parker and Yuma Groundwater basins and CAP water is the largest supply in the Harquahala Basin. Gila 1,027,250 Surface Water River water combined with effluent 1,921,683 discharge from the Phoenix AMA is an agricultural supply in the Gila River Basin. Elsewhere, groundwater is the primary water supply. Colorado River water is also used to meet environmental needs at the Imperial Wildlife Refuge in the Parker and Lower Gila basins. A discussion of Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 31 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Colorado River water entitlements and accounting is presented below. For purposes of the Atlas, water diverted from a watercourse or spring is considered surface water and if it is pumped from wells it is accounted for as groundwater. This is reflected in the cultural water demand tables in each basin section. Colorado River Water Decree Accounting The right or authorization to beneficially use Colorado River water is defined as an entitlement. Entitlements held by Colorado River water users are created by decree of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. California et al. (Decree), through a contract with the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) under Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (BCPA) of December 21, 1928, or by Secretarial Reservation. Table 7.0-6 shows the annual total amount of Colorado River water that was consumptively used for each category of water use within each basin in the planning area based on an accounting system established by Decree. Article V of the Decree directs the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to prepare an annual report of diversions from the mainstream, return flow of water to the mainstream that makes water available for downstream consumptive use in the U.S. or in satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty obligation, and the consumptive use of such water. The Article V report lists diversions and return flow separately by diverter, point of diversion and state, for each of the lower basin states. According to the Article V report, consumptive use of Colorado River water in the planning area for agricultural, municipal, industrial and environmental purposes averaged 1,197,486 acre-feet annually for the 2001-2003 time period out of a total annual entitlement of 1,676,209 acre-feet. The table shows the quantities of water diverted by surface water diversions, in-river pumps, or pumped from wells assumed to be located within the hydraulically connected aquifer of the Colorado River. When determining consumptive water use, the Article V accounting system considers measured return flow and estimates of unmeasured return flows to the mainstream. Reclamation has made a preliminary delineation of the lateral and vertical extent of the Colorado River aquifer to provide a basis for accounting of withdrawals against river water allocations. On August 18, 2006, Reclamation initiated a rulemaking process for Regulating Non-Contract Use of Colorado River Water in the Lower Basin (71 FR 47763) to prevent non-contract Colorado River water use from depleting the river and taking water from holders of Colorado River water entitlements. Reclamation’s most current assessment indicates that most existing non-contract water use results from water withdrawn from wells located within the hydraulically connected aquifer of the Colorado River or from river pumps. Because of the complexity of the accounting system and its unique methodology, the cultural water demand tables in Sections 7.4, 7.5 and 7.11 of this volume (those basins that utilize this supply), reflect the amount of water pumped from wells and diverted from streams. The tables do not attempt to distinguish whether the water is used pursuant to the entitlement system. 32 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 5 4 564,313 839 12,174 0 1,184,538 571,245 610 13,137 0 1,319,126 312,237 0 7 743 407,512 0 1,815 11,822 1986-90 543,251 469 15,255 0 1,248,876 241,267 0 19 1,800 425,204 0 1,891 19,719 1991-95 560,581 2,250 21,625 0 1,315,019 278,826 0 62 1,773 429,193 0 2,339 18,368 1996-00 492,110 892 21,325 0 1,197,486 273,365 0 76 920 392,450 0 2,011 14,338 2001-032 The Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (IDD) spans an area in the Lower Gila and Yuma basins. The consumptive use has been prorated based on the percentage of land in each basin. The Imperial National Wildlife Refuge spans an area in the Parker and Lower Gila basins. The consumptive use has been prorated based on the percentage of land in each basin. The entitlement amounts do not include 72,000 acre-feet for the Ak-Chin (50,000 acre-feet) and Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian (22,000 acre-feet) water rights settlements. This water is delivered by the Central Arizona Project to the Ak-Chin and Salt River- Pima Maricopa Indian Communities. 582,257 1,772 54,945 0 1,676,209 272,980 0 265 6,262 693,486 0 8,004 56,238 Entitlement3 In 2003, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) began deducting unmeasured return flows from the diversions by individual divertors. Prior to this time, Reclamation only deducted the total amount of unmeasured return flow from the total Lower Basin diversions. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 5 4 3 2 631,711 1,021 10,146 0 1,220,352 676,165 1,046 13,272 0 1,334,927 Agricultural Industrial Municipal Environmental TOTAL Environmental Yuma 258,612 0 6 22 338,033 0 1,770 8,768 1981-85 Reported consumptive use for individual users may not cover an entire 5 year period; the average is based on the years of record. Footnotes 1 209,015 0 5 59 5 4 309,367 0 2 40 Environmental Lower Gila Agricultural Industrial Municipal 1976-80 354,197 0 1,070 13,128 1971-75 334,058 0 829 148 Parker Agricultural Industrial Municipal Basin/Year1 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA DECREE ACCOUNTING OF THE CONSUMPTIVE USE OF COLORADO Table 7.0-6 Arizona v. California Decree accounting of the consumptive use of Colorado River RIVER WATER IN THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA water in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area (in acre-feet/year) (in acre-feet/year) 33 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Entitlement Priority Levels Rights to Colorado River water include the following several priority levels: a. 1st Priority: Satisfaction of Present Perfected Rights as defined in the Arizona v. California decree b. 2nd Priority: Satisfaction of Secretarial Reservations and Perfected Rights established prior to September 30, 1968 c. 3rd Priority: Satisfaction of entitlements pursuant to contracts between the United States and water users in Arizona executed on or before September 30, 1968 (2nd and 3rd priority are coequal) d. 4th Priority: i) Contracts, Secretarial Reservations and other arrangements between the U.S. and water users in Arizona entered into after September 30, 1968, for a total quantity not to exceed 164,652 acre-feet of diversions annually and ii) contract No. 14-06-W-245, dated December 15, 1972, as amended, between the United States and the Central Arizona Project (CAP). Entitlements having a 4th priority as described in (i) and (ii) are coequal. e. 5th Priority: Unused entitlement f. 6th Priority: Surplus water In general, the lower priority entitlements will be the first to be impacted when the Secretary declares a shortage on the Colorado River system. Within the planning area, entitlement holders with a first priority or present perfected rights include the Cocopah Indian Reservation, Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation, Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Yuma County Water Users’ Association, North Gila Valley Irrigation District, Unit “B” Irrigation and Drainage District, the City of Yuma and the Town of Parker. Second and third priority entitlement holders (which are coequal), include the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Imperial and Cibola National Wildlife Refuges, Yuma Proving Grounds, the Marine Corps Air Station–Yuma, Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District and others. Information on Colorado River entitlements in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area is provided in Appendix B. Entitlements may be transferred under certain conditions. Within the planning area, the Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District has assigned a portion of its entitlement to the Mohave County Water Authority (MCWA, Priority 5 and/or 6), to the Hopi Tribe (Priority 4, 5 and 6) and to Cibola Resources for municipal use at Ehrenberg. More information on entitlement transfers is in Appendix C. Coordinated Operations and Shortage Criteria In December 2007, Reclamation issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on interim operating criteria (2008-2026) including the coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead and criteria for implementing shortage reductions in the Lower Basin. Historically, the reservoirs were operated independently; annual Lake Powell water releases were determined based on applicable law and relevant factors contained in the Long-Range Operating Criteria. The ROD adopted four key elements: 1) establishes rules for shortages; 2) allows coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead to avoid Lower Basin shortages and avoid curtailment of Upper Basin water use; 3) establishes rules for surpluses; and 4) address ongoing drought by encouraging new initiatives for water conservation. If regional drought conditions continue, shortage operations could begin as early as 2011. The ROD could have implications for water supply availability in the planning area. 34 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Colorado River Water Supply Distribution System In the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, dams on the Colorado River were constructed primarily for the purpose of regulating river flow and creating storage to facilitate water diversions to Arizona, California and Mexico via canals pursuant to decrees, international treaties and other legal agreements. Figure 7.0-11 shows the location of major dams, water delivery and diversion structures, and other features along the Colorado and Gila Rivers in the planning area. The agricultural and municipal water delivery systems are discussed in the cultural water demand section (7.0.6). The Colorado River system is described briefly below, from north to south. Parker Dam Parker Dam, at the northern edge of the planning area in the Parker Basin, is a concrete arch structure 320 feet high and 856 feet long at its crest. It is the deepest dam in the world with 73 percent of its structural height below the original riverbed. Completed in 1938, it impounds Lake Havasu and provides a desilting basin and forebay for diversion of Colorado River water. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California pumps water into its Colorado River Aqueduct from the forebay, conveying it 242 miles west to Lake Mathews near Riverside, California. On the Arizona side, water is pumped from the forebay into the CAP canal for use in central Arizona. (USBOR, 2007c) The dam includes a powerplant that is integrated with the Davis and Hoover powerplants, providing power to Arizona and southern California. The powerplant is remotely operated from the Hoover Control Center. (USBOR, 2006) Headgate Rock Dam Downstream of Parker Dam, irrigation water for the Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation near Parker is diverted at Headgate Rock Dam. This dam was constructed in 1942 to stabilize the river channel and provide reliable irrigation supplies. (USBOR, 2007d) A levee system protects areas downstream from flooding. Palo Verde Diversion Dam Palo Verde Diversion Dam is located about 44 miles downstream of Headgate Rock Dam. It maintains a sufficiently high, constant water surface elevation at the Palo Verde Irrigation District canal headwork for delivery of irrigation water to the west side of the Colorado River near Blythe, California. The dam is a semipervious barrier of sand, gravel and rockfill, 46 feet high and 1,850 feet long. (USBOR, 2007e) Senator Wash Dam Senator Wash Dam and Reservoir is an offstream pumping facility located on the California side of the river about two miles upstream from Imperial Dam. This structure improves water scheduling by downstream users by storing part of the riverflow upstream of Imperial Dam when it is not needed, releasing it to the river for downstream use when needed. Without the dam it would take three days for water released at Parker Dam to reach Imperial Dam. The dam is an earth embankment structure 2,342 feet long with a height of about 94 feet. Other works include three dikes, a spillway and a pumping plant. (USBOR, 2007d) Imperial Dam Imperial Dam is a major diversion point for both Arizona and California. The dam raises the water Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 35 NIB Ala Pilot Knob Wasteway Morelos Dam al mo Can l A All ain Dr l na Ca n al S a Gil Main out h G ila Canal l na Ca Laguna Dam ve t le Drain annel lot Ch r Pi ut O “B” Canal ” “A Can al North Gila an ri c me East Main Canal an hC Cocopa Yuma nal in Ca Yuma Ma Reservation Ma i Yuma Main Canal Wasteway Yuma Desalting Plant 242 Well Field and Lateral Colorado River Ri Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 SIB Bypass Drain Levee Yuma Mesa Conduit Mittry Lake ty avi Gila Gr M Mo haw k an C Morelos Dam al Ariz ona Me xico la Gi Laguna Dam Imperial Dam Senator Wash Dam Reservoir & Works ra Colo o Parker Dam Headgate Rock Dam Palo Verde Diversion Dam Figure 7.0-11 Operational Diagram of the Colorado River Lower Colorado River Planning Area r ve Ri a nC Wellto al Can a wk M oh na l nal Ca ai n California nlto el W Operational diagram,not to scale Adapted from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1993 Map and Operational Diagram Lower Colorado River Lees Ferry to Gulf of California Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT River d Dr ain Ma in Central Cana West Main C an al 36 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 surface about 25 feet, allowing controlled gravity flow into the All American Canal and the Gila Gravity Main Canal. The All American Canal system diverts water from the California side of the dam and serves Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, the Yuma Project in Arizona and California, and the City of Yuma. The Gila Gravity Main Canal system diverts water from the Arizona side of the dam and serves the north and south Gila Valley, Yuma Mesa, and the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District area. Imperial Dam is also used to regulate water deliveries to Mexico required by international treaty. (USBOR, 2007b) Laguna Dam From Imperial Dam to the Northerly International Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico, the entire channel of the Colorado River is bounded by a system of levees. Laguna Dam, located five miles downstream of Imperial Dam serves as a regulating structure for Colorado River water. (USBOR, 2007b) Because of upstream diversions and dams, from Laguna Dam to Morelos Dam the river consists of a small active channel located within a broad, older riverbed entrenched below the historic level of the unregulated river (USBOR, 2007d). Yuma Desalting Plant, Main Outlet Extension and Bypass Extension Utilizing Colorado River water for domestic and agricultural purposes has steadily increased the salinity of its waters. In the 1960s crops in the Mexicali Valley were damaged by the high salinity of the Colorado River water used for irrigation. An amendment to the 1944 treaty with Mexico (Minute 242) guaranteed that the treaty water delivery would be no more than 115 ppm (+/- 30 ppm) more saline than the water diverted at Imperial Dam. Nine miles downstream from Laguna Dam the Gila River enters the Colorado. Along the Gila River, extensive agricultural irrigation with Colorado River water in the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD) has made it necessary to install drainage wells to pump excess irrigation water to keep salts from accumulating in the root zone. About 120,000 acre-feet of brackish groundwater is pumped annually. If this water was directly returned to the river it would increase salinity levels above the international treaty standard and could not be counted towards Mexico’s Colorado River apportionment of 1.5 million acre-feet per year. To desalinate the drainage water so that it could be returned to the mainstem and counted toward the apportionment, Reclamation constructed the Yuma Desalting Plant (YDP). Completed in 1992, the YDP is designed to treat up to 96,000 acre-feet of water per year. It operated briefly in 1993 and was then put on standby status until a recent “demonstration run” in 2007. WMIDD drainage water is discharged to the Main Outlet Drain Extension (MODE) and its bypass extension in Mexico and delivered to the Santa Clara Slough (Cienega de Santa Clara). (WMIDD, 2004) California and Pilot Knob Wasteways Four miles downstream from the mouth of the Gila River, the Yuma Main Canal wasteway returns water to the river to comply with the treaty obligation to Mexico. In addition, a portion of the water scheduled to be delivered to Mexico is diverted at Imperial Dam, conveyed by the All American Canal, and returned to the river through the Pilot Knob Wasteway west of Yuma. (USBOR, 2007b) Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 37 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Northerly International Boundary (NIB) to Southerly International Boundary (SIB)/Morelos Dam The 23.7 mile long reach of the Colorado River between the NIB and the SIB is referred to as the limitrophe section. Levees have been constructed on both sides of the river. About 1.1 miles downstream of the NIB, Morelos Diversion Dam acts as a diversion control structure for the Alamo Canal, which conveys water to Mexico. Other infrastructure includes wasteways, bypass channel, levees, etc. (USBOR, 2007b) Below Morelos Dam, operation of a dredge in Mexico at the head of the Alamo Canal, deposits a considerable amount of sediment into the river. In addition, river flow is reduced in this section due to diversions by Mexico into the Alamo Canal, and the channel is overgrown with vegetation. As a result, the flood capacity of the channel has been reduced, posing a threat to the safety of the Valley Division of the Yuma Project. (USBOR, 2007d) 242 Well Field and Lateral The 242 well field and lateral is located east of San Luis in a 5-mile wide strip of land consisting of 21 wells. The well field intercepts part of the groundwater flow, including irrigation drainage water that moves south into Mexico from the Yuma Mesa. Water pumped from the well field is delivered at the SIB to Mexico through the 242 Lateral and other laterals to meet international treaty obligations for Colorado River water deliveries. (USBOR, 2007a) Central Arizona Project Water Colorado River water is withdrawn at Lake Havasu at the Mark Wilmer Pumping Plant to the Central Arizona Project Aqueduct system. It crosses the Parker, Ranegras Plain and Harquahala basins via the Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct to the CAP service area in central Arizona (Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties). CAP water is used both directly and stored underground in the planning area pursuant to the Department’s Recharge Program. Storage facilities in the planning area are shown in Table 7.0-7. The Vidler Water Company Underground Storage Facility (USF) is located near Centennial in the Harquahala Basin where it is permitted to recharge up to 100,000 acre-feet of CAP water annually. Harquahala Valley Irrigation District (HVID), located in the southern part of the Harquahala Basin holds a groundwater savings facility permit (GSF). It receives excess (uncontracted) CAP water which it uses “in-lieu” of groundwater. The Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) holds water storage permits to store excess CAP water at both facilities. HVID has been using CAP water since 1986 and it has replaced groundwater as the major water supply in the basin. As a result of this storage and direct use, groundwater levels have risen in the vicinity of Vidler and HVID. A long-term storage account was established for the McMullen Valley Water Conservation & Drainage District (Vicksburg Farms) in 2000 in anticipation of the accrual of long term storage credits from storage of CAP water via two injection wells. However, a water storage permit was never issued and no water has been stored. 38 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-7 Storage facilities in the Harquahala Basin Permit Type/No. Permit Holder Project Description (Duration) Associated Water Storage Permit No’s and Permit Holder Vidler Water Vidler Water Company 73-576699.01: Vidler Storage Company Recharge Project: Annual recharge up to 100,000 acrefeet of CAP via basins and vadose zone wells. (09/03/04 to 09/30/20) 73-576699.02: AWBA USF 71-576699.0004 GSF 72-593304.0000 Harquahala Valley Indirect recharge up to Irrigation Dist. 50,000 acre-feet per annually of in lieu water. (03/06/06 to 03/06/11) 73-593304; AWBA Surface Water The Gila River in the Gila Bend Basin is the only major surface water supply in the planning area in addition to the Colorado River. The river is intermittent or ephemeral in the planning area and the volume available for use is a mixture of upstream releases of water from dams, storm runoff from precipitation events, irrigation return flows and effluent flows from the 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) located in the Phoenix AMA. The 91st Avenue WWTP, located near the confluence of the Salt, Gila and Agua Fria Rivers, has a current treatment capacity of 179 mgd (over 200,000 acre-feet/year). In typical years, most if not all water in this reach of the river is wastewater effluent (ADWR, 1994a). Flow is extremely variable in the river with annual flows varying from 0 to more than 5.6 maf at the gage below Gillespie Dam at the northern edge of the Gila Bend Basin. Median flow at the gage is about 43,000 acre-feet per year. The waters of the Gila are designated as “impaired” due to elevated concentrations of organic compounds that exceed the designated use standard for fish consumption from it’s point of entry into the planning area to Painted Rock Dam. Below Painted Rock Dam the Gila is impaired due to dissolved oxygen, organics, selenium and boron concentrations that exceed fish consumption or aquatic and wildlife uses (see Tables 7.2-7 and 7.4-7). Groundwater In basins without access to Colorado River or CAP water, groundwater is the primary water supply. Groundwater is a relatively abundant and dependable water supply throughout the planning area with relatively large volumes of groundwater in storage and high well yields in many basins. Well yields typically exceed 1,000 gpm, and often exceed more than 2,000 gpm, in almost all basins in the planning area. In groundwater dependent basins, estimates of water in storage are as high as 61 maf in the Gila Bend Basin, 15 maf in the McMullen Valley Basin and 27 maf in the Ranegras Plain Basin. However, groundwater levels declined in many of these basins between 1990-1991 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 39 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 and 2003-2004. Water levels declined by more than 30 feet in several wells in the northern part of the Gila Bend Basin during this period and wells near Salome-Wenden in the McMullen Valley Basin and in the central part of the Ranegras Plain Basin show similar declines (see Figures 7.2-6, 7.5-6 and 7.7-6). There are widespread instances of fluoride and arsenic levels that equal or exceed drinking water standards and high salinity levels in many agricultural areas. As mentioned previously, importation of Colorado River water in the Lower Gila and Yuma Basins has locally raised groundwater levels and changed groundwater flow directions, requiring drainage wells and exportation of water out of the basins. In general, the Groundwater Transportation Act of 1991 restricts the transportation of groundwater from non-AMA groundwater basins to AMAs. However, there are three basins in the planning area from which groundwater may be withdrawn and transported outside of the basin: Butler Valley, Harquahala and McMullen Valley. General statutory provisions governing groundwater transportation from these basins are discussed below. Withdrawal and transportation of groundwater may cause groundwater level declines and impact the groundwater supply available for use within the basins. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 45-553, groundwater may be withdrawn from the Butler Valley Basin and transferred to an initial AMA from State land or land owned by a political subdivision of the State (e.g. counties, cities and special districts). There are no limits on the volume of groundwater that may be transported from the basin. Groundwater may be withdrawn from historically irrigated lands in the McMullen Valley Basin that were owned by a city or person prior to January 1, 1988 and transported to the Phoenix AMA. (A.R.S. § 45-552) Qualified groundwater importers are cities, towns, private water companies and replenishment districts for their use or use by the AWBA. The City of Phoenix owns 14,000 acres of agricultural lands in the basin. The annual volume that may be withdrawn is limited to an average of 3 acre-feet per irrigated acre with a total limit of 6 million acre-feet. If this water is used for an assured water supply demonstration in an AMA, only water withdrawn above 1,000 feet at a rate not to exceed 10 feet per year over the 100 year period will be considered. In the Harquahala Basin, A.R.S. § 45-552 allows the transportation of groundwater pumped from historically irrigated lands owned by a political subdivision of the state and transported for its use in an AMA or use by the AWBA. The volumetric limit is 6 acrefeet per acre per year or 30 acre-feet per acre for any period of ten consecutive years. The director of ADWR may establish an alternative volume as long as it will not unreasonably increase damage to residents and other water users. Groundwater may not be withdrawn below 1,000 feet nor at a rate that cause declines of more than an average of ten feet per year during the one hundred year evaluation period. The City of Scottsdale has applied to the Department to export 3,645.24 acrefeet of groundwater per year from 1,215.08 acres of historically irrigated lands in the Harquahala Basin. As of 12/27/07 the application was still pending. In order to better understand the water supply situation in areas of the state where data are lacking, the Department has established automated groundwater monitoring sites that record water levels in wells. This information is available through an interactive map on the Department’s website to allow access to local information for planning, drought mitigation and other purposes (www. azwater.gov/dwr/). These devices were located based on areas of growth, subsidence, type of land use, proximity to river/stream channels, proximity to water contamination sites or areas affected by drought. 40 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 1-18 of Volume 1 of the Atlas shows the location of automatic water-level recording sites as of 2005. At that time there were a total of ten sites in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, consisting of ADWR and USGS sites. Of these, there are seven ADWR sites located in the Butler Valley, Gila Bend, Harquahala, Lower Gila, McMullen Valley and Ranegras Plain basins. Index well hydrographs, which display historic water level behavior, are available through an interactive map at the same website for 174 index wells in the planning area. Index wells are located in all basins except for San Simon Wash, most of which is covered by the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. Information on major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, aquifer flow direction, and water level changes are found in groundwater data tables, groundwater conditions maps, hydrographs and well yield maps for each basin in Sections 7.1-7.11. Effluent Effluent, or reclaimed water, is a little used resource in the planning area with less than 700 acrefeet used annually as a partial water supply for six golf courses in the Yuma Basin and one golf course in the Parker Basin. Golf course irrigation demand is higher in the summer, but effluent production is higher in the winter when the area population increases due to winter visitors. The water supply at Foothills Executive, Foothills Par 3 and Las Barrancas Golf Courses is about 90% effluent in the winter and 90% groundwater in the summer (personal communication, T. Holyk, 11/07). Effluent discharged to the Gila River from the Phoenix AMA is an agricultural water supply in the Gila Bend Basin, but the volume used is not quantified. Approximately 16,300 acre-feet of effluent are treated in the planning area, and 79% of that (12,800 acre-feet) is generated in the Yuma Basin. Approximately 153,000 people or 79% of the total planning area population is served by a sewer system. Most of this potential water supply is discharged to evaporation ponds or to infiltration basins after treatment. A number of basins including, Butler Valley, Harquahala, McMullen Valley, Ranegras Plain, and Tiger Wash, have no record of a wastewater treatment plant. Use of septic tanks appears to be widespread throughout the entire planning area. Contamination Sites Sites of environmental contamination may impact the use of some water supplies. An inventory of Department of Defense (DOD), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund (Environmental Protection Agency designated sites), Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (state designated WQARF sites), Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites was conducted for the planning area. Of these various contamination sites, DOD, Superfund, WQARF and VRP sites are found in the planning area. Table 7.0-8 lists the contaminant and affected media and the basin location of these sites. The location of all contamination sites in the planning area is shown on Figure 7.0-12. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 41 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-8 Active contamination sites in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area MEDIA AFFECTED AND CONTAMINANT SITE NAME GROUNDWATER BASIN Voluntary Remediation Sites Adair Memorial Park Soil/Lead Yuma APS Yuma Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Soil/Hydrocarbons, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Volatile Organic Compounds( VOCs) Yuma Chevron Ajo Bulk Plant Soil & Groundwater/Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl benzene, and Xylene (BTEX) Lower Gila Soil & Groundwater/Total Petroleum KMEP-Yuma Marine Corps Air Hydrocarbons (TPH); Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Station benzene, and Xylene (BTEX); and Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) Yuma Union Pacific Railroad Former AZ Agrochemical Facility Soil/Pesticides Yuma Union Pacific Railroad Yuma Yard Dieselville Soil & Groundwater/Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl benzene, and Xylene (BTEX) Yuma Western Farm Service-Yuma Plant Soil & Groundwater/Toxaphene dieldrin, Dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT), Dichloro diphenyl dichloroethane (DDD), Dichloro diphenyl dichloroethylene (DDE), Endrin heptachor epoxide disulphate and Nitrate Yuma Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) Sites 20th Street and Factor Avenue Soil & Groundwater/Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and Cyanide Yuma Tyson Wash Groundwater/ Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and Tricholoroethene (TCE) Yuma National Priority List (NPL) Superfund Sites Yuma Marine Corps Air Station Soil & Groundwater/Trichloroethene (TCE), Dichloroethene (DCE), Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Yuma Department of Defense (DOD) Sites Yuma Army Proving Grounds Soil & Groundwater/Hydrocarbons, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) and Metals Lower Gila Sources: ADEQ 2002, ADEQ 2006a, ADEQ 2006b 42 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 43 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 There are seven active VRP sites, all but one in the Yuma Basin and all primarily sites of organic compound contamination such as petroleum and pesticide products. The VRP is a state administered and funded voluntary cleanup program. Any site that has soil and/or groundwater contamination, provided that the site is not subject to an enforcement action by another program, is eligible to participate. To encourage participation, ADEQ provides an expedited process and a single point of contact for projects that involve more than one regulatory program (Environmental Law Institute, 2002). There are two WQARF sites and one Superfund site in the Yuma Basin. All sites involve Trichloroethylene (TCE) or Tetrachloroethene (PCE) contamination. The Tyson Wash WQARF Site is located between Tyson Wash and Highway 95 north of Business Route 10 in Quartzsite. Contamination was detected in 1993 and a groundwater monitoring program began in 1995 to further investigate the extent of contamination. The upper aquifer, located about 42 to 65 feet below the land surface, has been affected. Water is being pumped and treated on site and injected back into the aquifer. (ADEQ, 2005) The 20th Street and Factor WQARF Site is located in Yuma and has cyanide contamination. Formerly the site of a motion picture laboratory and photo equipment manufacturer, wastewater was treated to recover silver and then discharged to a sump and disposal pond, to the ground, and used for landscape irrigation. Remedial actions at this site include soil removal and investigations to define the extent of a groundwater contamination plume. (ADEQ, 2007a) The Yuma Marine Corps Air Station (YMCAS) Superfund site, located at Yuma, involves multiple contaminants in groundwater as a result of disposal of materials related to military activities. Remedial actions include vertical recirculation of groundwater to contain and treat areas of relatively low contaminant concentrations, and air sparging/soil vapor extraction to treat the Area 1 Hot Spot (Source) Plume area (ADEQ, 2007b). The Yuma Army Proving Ground Department of Defense Site is located northeast of Yuma and was first used as a military training facility during WWII. Later it became a site for testing of equipment under desert conditions. Groundwater contamination has occurred from the possible release of half a million gallons of fuel and from other actions. Environmental investigations and cleanup activities are underway and most of the contaminated areas are fenced. (ADEQ, 2007c) There are 213 active LUST sites in the planning area. One hundred eight sites are located at Yuma, 22 at Gila Bend, 18 at Quartzsite, 13 each at Parker and Ehrenberg, and ten sites or less at Somerton, Vicksburg, Wellton, Salome, Lukeville, Tacna and Centennial Wash. 7.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Cultural water demand in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, organized by water source and water demand sector, is shown in Table 7.0-9. Total cultural water demand averaged approximately 3,038,400 acre-feet per year during the period from 2001-2003. Almost 98% of this demand is by the agricultural sector with approximately 2,974,200 acre-feet of annual demand. Agricultural demand occurs in all of the basins with the exception of Tiger Wash and Western Mexican Drainage basins. About 65% of this agricultural demand is met by surface water diverted from the Colorado River. Municipal demand is about 1.6% of the total planning area demand with an average of 49,380 acre-feet during the period 2001-2003. Municipal demand is primarily met by Colorado 44 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 River water and the municipal sector is the only sector that utilizes effluent. Table 7.0-9 Lower Colorado River Planning Industrial demand, primarily related Area average cultural water demand by sector to dairies and feedlots, accounted for (2001-2003) 14,850 acre-feet, 0.5% of the total Water Source/Demand Sector Acre-feet Percent demand during this period. Tribal water Groundwater demand is included in these totals. Agricultural 999,700 32.93% Cultural demand volumes vary substantially between planning area basins and ranges from less than 300 acre-feet per year in the Tiger Wash and Western Mexican Drainage basins to 1,075,900 acre-feet per year in the Yuma Basin (see Figure 7.0-13). Municipal Industrial Surface Water Effluent 15,600 11,398 0.51% 0.37% Agricultural 1,974,500 Municipal 33,100 Industrial 1,382 65.03% 1.09% 0.05% Municipal 680 0.02% Figure 7.0-13 Average total basin water demand per year in acre-feet (2001-2003) San Simon Wash 5,000 Butler Valley 8,850 Tiger Wash 150 Western Mex. Drainage 150 Gila Bend 350,500 Yuma 1,075,900 Lower Gila 687,500 Parker 656,800 Harquahala 123,850 McMullen Valley 98,700 Ranegras Plain 28,900 Tribal Water Demand Tribal lands in the planning area include the Cocopah, Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT), Gila Bend, Fort Yuma-Quechan and the Tohono O’odham reservations. The Cocopah, Fort YumaQuechan and CRIT hold Priority 1 Colorado River entitlements totaling 677,573 acre-feet a year. The CRIT entitlement is 662,402 acre-feet, the largest in the state and about a third of the state’s non-CAP entitlement. By comparison, the total non-tribal Priority 1 entitlement in the planning Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 45 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 area is 290,923 acre-feet. Annual tribal demand is approximately 658,000 acre-feet a year, most of which is agricultural irrigation on the CRIT Reservation in the Parker Basin. Almost the entire San Simon Wash Basin is within Tohono O’odham Reservation boundaries. Cocopah The Cocopah Reservation is entirely within the Yuma Basin. The reservation has about 1,000 tribal members and consists of three parcels (East, West and North Cocopah) located south of Yuma. The tribe has approximately 2,400 acres of land under irrigation, leased to non-tribal farmers. The tribe operates a casino and a number of community facilities. (ITCA, 2003) There is no tribal water utility but the Cocopah Environmental Protection Office tests the quality of domestic wells and monitors agricultural water use to ensure that the tribe does not exceed its annual Colorado River allocation. This office also conducts weekly monitoring of groundwater levels and Colorado River water quality within the limitrophe region that crosses the boundaries of the West Reservation. (Cocopah Indian Tribe, 2006) The tribe’s Colorado River entitlement is 8,821 acre-feet per year of Priority 1 rights and 2,026 acre-feet of Priority 4 entitlement for areas south of Morelos Dam. Fort Yuma-Quechan The Fort Yuma-Quechan Reservation is located primarily in California. Only 4% of the reservation land is in Arizona with 45 residents located just east of Yuma in the Yuma Basin. Tribal offices, RV parks and two casinos are also located in Arizona. The tribe owns a 700-acre farm which is leased to a non-Indian farmer. Some of this farm is apparently located in Arizona (ITCA, 2003). Colorado River Indian Tribes Most of the CRIT Reservation is located in Arizona in the Parker Basin with a small portion in California. The Colorado River Indian Tribes include the Mohave, Chemehuevi, Hopi and Navajo, and about 3,500 active tribal members. The primary tribal community is Parker, which contains non-tribal lands and Poston with about 400 tribal residents. The CRIT operate the CRIT Regional Water System (CRIT, 2005) and the CRIT Water Department serves the area outside the Parker Town limits. Tribal municipal demand is relatively small. The primary economic activity on the reservation is agriculture. Pursuant to Arizona v. California, 99,375 acres of irrigated land were decreed with an associated annual Colorado River entitlement of 662,402 acre-feet. According to the 2006 Lower Colorado Accounting System, actual irrigated lands in Arizona totaled 72,610 acres, including land irrigated by lessees. The amount of irrigated acreage in Arizona reportedly averages between 72,000 to 80,000 acres. CRIT Farms manages over 15,000 acres of alfalfa, cotton, durum wheat and other crops (CRIT, 2005). Other economic activities on the reservation include recreation, gaming, governmental services and light industry. The tribe operates two sand and gravel facilities, one at Parker and one north of Ehrenberg. These facilities supply concrete ready mix, asphalt and sand and gravel products to La Paz County and to neighboring counties in California. (CRIT, 2005) Tohono O’odham Water demand on the Tohono O’odham reservation is primarily related to municipal/domestic uses in the tribal communities, particularly at Sells, and farming in the southern part of the San Simon 46 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Wash Basin at Papago Farms. The Tohono O’odham Utility Authority Water Department serves a total of about 3,200 customers and has 1,676 wastewater customers on the entire reservation which stretches into the Pinal and Tucson Active Management Areas. The Water Department is working to connect small systems into a single system that can be maintained in a central location. There are currently seven such systems in operation. (TOUA, 2007a) In the planning area there are plans to connect two community systems south of Gu Vo and connect another community with a regional system by the end of 2007. The water supply for the reservation comes from 73 wells located in and around the reservation. (TOUA, 2007b) Gila Bend The Gila Bend Reservation (San Lucy District) is part of the Tohono O’odham Nation but is located outside of the main reservation area north of Gila Bend. Water demand could not be determined, but based on aerial photos, it appears that there is no agricultural demand. In the Town of Gila Bend there is a multi-purpose district building and a health center that serves the district (ADOC, 2005). Municipal Demand Municipal demand is summarized by groundwater basin and water supply in Table 7.0-10. Average annual demand during 2001-2003 was about 49,400 acre-feet. Sixty-seven percent of the municipal demand is met by surface water from the Colorado River, primarily in the Yuma Basin. In all other basins, groundwater is the primary municipal water supply. Effluent is used to meet municipal demand in the Yuma and Parker basins. Table 7.0-10 Average annual municipal water demand in the Lower Colorado River Planning area (2001-2003) in acre-feet Basin Groundwater Surface Water Butler Valley <300 Gila Bend 950 Harquahala 950 Lower Gila 2,100 600 McMullen Valley 550 Parker 3,300 500 Ranegras Plain 400 San Simon Wash 1,000 Tiger Wash <300 Western Mexican Drainage <300 Yuma 5,900 32,000 Total Municipal 15,600 33,100 Sources: USGS 2005b Notes: Effluent figures are for golf course irrigation in 2006 Volume <300 acre-feet assumed to be 150 acre-feet for computation purposes Effluent 220 460 680 Total 150 950 950 2,700 550 4,020 400 1,000 150 150 38,360 49,380 It is estimated that about 84% of the planning area population is served by a water provider. Eight water providers in the planning area served 500 acre-feet of water or more in 2003. These providers and their demand in 1992, 2000 and 2003 are shown in Table 7.0-11. In 2003, municipal Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 47 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 utilities served the communities of Gila Bend, Wellton, Parker, San Luis, Somerton and Yuma. Municipally-owned systems have more flexible water rate-setting ability than private water companies, which are regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission. In addition, municipal utilities have the authority to enact water conservation ordinances. This authority may enable municipal utilities to better manage water resources within water service areas. Water provider issues are discussed in Section 7.0.8. Table 7.0-11 Water providers serving a minimum of 500 acre-feet of water per year, excluding effluent, in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Basin/Water Provider Gila Bend 1992 (acre-feet) 2000 (acre-feet) 2003 (acre-feet) Town of Gila Bend 537 651 837 Ajo Improvement Company Town of Wellton 541 NA 660 158 555 638 Town of Parker 887 1,049 1,027 City of Somerton City of San Luis Far West Water and Sewer - Fortuna Foothills Yuma Municipal Water Department 827 772 2,994 21,680 1,012 1,904 5,222 32,906 2,096 2,588 4,891 30,016 Lower Gila Parker Yuma Sources: USBOR 1991, USBOR 2000, USBOR 2003, USGS 2005 NA = Not Available Notes: The Town of Ajo is served by three water providers. Ajo Improvement Company provides water to all three systems. Yuma Municipal Water Department demand are reported diversions of Colorado River water from the Bureau of Reclamation Article V Decree Accounting Reports. Golf course demand is estimated to be approximately 12% of the total municipal demand. Estimated demand and water supply for all golf courses in the planning area is shown in Table 7.0-12. There are twelve municipal golf courses in the Yuma Basin receiving a combination of groundwater, surface water and effluent, three in the Lower Gila Basin using groundwater or surface water and one each in McMullen Valley and Parker basins. Primary municipal demand centers are the Yuma area where the four largest communities in the planning area are located, and Parker/Parker Strip, Ajo, Quartzsite and Gila Bend. The only basins with population centers greater than 1,000 are Gila Bend, Lower Gila, Parker and Yuma basins. Yuma Area The total municipal demand in the Yuma Basin is about 38,400 acre-feet per year. The largest providers, City of Yuma, Far West Water and Sewer, Inc., City of Somerton and City of San Luis provided about 29,900 acre-feet of Colorado River water and groundwater to customers in 2003 (although there are accounting discrepancies as noted in Table 7.0-11). A number of wastewater treatment plants treat sewage in the Yuma area. The largest is the Figueroa Avenue Water Pollution Control Facility at Yuma. Somerton, San Luis and Far West Sewer also operate relatively large 48 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 treatment plants. In its 2002 General Plan, the City of Yuma estimated that about 24% of existing housing units were not connected to a sewer system and that rapid growth in the Fortuna Foothills area has resulted in construction of on-site septic systems and private package treatment plants. (City of Yuma, 2002) Table 7.0-12 Golf course demand in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area (c. 2006) Facility Basin Ajo Country Club Butterfield Golf Course Coyote Wash Golf Course Sunset Links Golf Club Emerald Canyon Golf Club Arroyo Dunes Golf Club Cocopah Bend RV&GC Desert Hills Golf Course Dove Valley Golf Course Foothills Executive Golf Course† Foothills par 3 Golf Course† Fortuna del Rey Golf Course† Ironwood Golf Course Las Barrancas Golf Course† Mesa Del Sol Golf Course† Sierra Sands Golf Course Westwind RV & Golf Resort Total Water Use Municipal Golf Courses Yuma Golf & Country Club* Total Water Use Industrial Golf Courses Total Water Use Lower Gila Basin Lower Gila Basin Lower Gila Basin McMullen Valley Parker Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma # of Demand Holes (acre-feet) Water Supply 9 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 9 9 9 9 18 18 18 9 211 441 441 441 441 175/175 441 441 441 211 211 211 211 441 441 221 211 Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Groundwater Surface Water/Effluent Groundwater/Surface Water Surface Water/Effluent Surface Water Groundwater Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater/Effluent Surface Water Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater/Effluent Surface Water Surface Water 18 5,806 441 Groundwater/Surface Water 441 6,247 Source: ADWR 2005c Notes: * This golf course is served by its own well and is considered to be an industrial user † These golf courses are served by Far West Water and Sewer. A total of 446 acre-feet of effluent is served for all courses. The City of Yuma is the largest water provider, with Priority 1 and Priority 3 Colorado River water annual consumptive use entitlements totaling 50,000 acre-feet. The City can supplement its entitlement through the use of return flow credits such as water returned to the river following wastewater treatment and conversion of irrigation rights to municipal use. Colorado River water is transported to Yuma through several facilities (see Figure 7.0-11). About 97% of the City’s water is transported through the All American Canal and Yuma County Water Users Association (YCWUA) facilities, including the Yuma Main Canal, to the Yuma Main Street Water Treatment Plant. The remaining three percent is delivered through the Gila Gravity Main Canal to the East Mesa treatment plant. (City of Yuma, 2002) In 2003, City of Yuma water demand was about 20,300 acre-feet. About three quarters of this demand is for residential uses. Commercial demand Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 49 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 includes deliveries to golf courses but the precise number of courses and amount delivered is not known. (City of Yuma, 2007) The Department estimated that there are at least six golf courses served by the City of Yuma with a total annual demand of over 1,800 acre-feet. It does not appear that the City of Yuma provides effluent to meet this turf irrigation demand. Far West Water and Sewer, Inc. serves the rapidly growing Fortuna Foothills area east of Yuma in unincorporated Yuma County. In 2003, it served about 4,900 acre-feet of water. The primary water supply is surface water from the Colorado River, delivered via the Yuma Mesa Irrigation District and “A” Canal. Groundwater is used as a back-up water supply, for irrigation water at three golf courses, and for construction. Far West operates a drinking water treatment plant, seven wastewater treatment facilities and serves about 15,000 water and 6,500 wastewater connections. (Far West Water & Sewer, Inc., 2006) About 446 acre-feet of treated wastewater, in addition to groundwater, is delivered to Foothills Executive, Foothills Par 3, Fortuna del Rey, Las Barrancas and Mesa del Sol golf courses to meet part of their annual water demand. Total annual demand of these courses is estimated at 1,525 acre-feet. The City of Somerton, located about ten miles southwest of Yuma, is a fast growing, primarily residential community with almost 10,000 residents in 2005. In 2003, approximately 2,100 acrefeet was served to customers, including the Dove Valley Golf Course. The Somerton Municipal Water System service area is about 2.5 square miles in size and groundwater is pumped from three wells located in T9S, R24W. A fourth well is not used due to water quality problems. Depth to water is consistently about ten feet below land surface. The City is not interconnected to any other systems. It has a 2006 contract for 750 acre-feet of Priority 4 Colorado River water and is purchasing rights that are not currently being used. (City of Somerton, 2006) Located adjacent to the international boundary, the City of San Luis is the fastest growing community in the entire planning area, growing by 33% between 2000 and 2005. The San Luis Municipal Water System served about 2,600 acre-feet in 2003. In 2006, approximately 3,400 acre-feet was withdrawn from nine wells to serve almost 5,100 customer connections. (City of San Luis, 2007) Parker/Parker Strip The Town of Parker and the Parker Strip had a combined population of about 6,400 in 2000. The Parker Strip is the area north of Parker along the Colorado River to the basin boundary. The area is growing rapidly, particularly the Parker Strip, which grew by 101% between 1990 and 2000. The Town of Parker Municipal System is the largest local water provider, serving about 3,200 residents with 1,250 service connections to the one square mile town, deeded inside the CRIT Reservation. The CRIT Water Department serves the area outside the town limits. Parker Municipal System pumped about 1,000 acre-feet in 2003 from three wells pumping Colorado River water. The town has 630 acre-feet of Priority 1 entitlement and a combined volume of 3,030 acre-feet of 4th, 5th and 6th Priority water. Water levels in system wells vary from 75 to 90 feet and well pumpage reportedly doubles in the summer months. The system is interconnected to the CRIT water system and is used for emergency purposes. (Town of Parker, 2006) Water demand in this area is primarily for residential and commercial use. 50 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Brooke Water LLC is the largest water provider in the Parker Strip and has an entitlement for 360 acre-feet of Priority 1 and 440 acre-feet of Priority 4 water. In 2003 Brooke Water LLC diverted 444 acre-feet of water and had a consumptive use of 297 acre-feet. Cienega Water Company, Inc. and Red Rock are smaller water providers in the Parker Strip that serve groundwater to a combined population of about 500 residents. Emerald Canyon Golf Course, located north of Cienega Springs, uses effluent from the Buckskin/Sandpiper WWTP to meet part of its irrigation demand. Ajo The Town of Ajo is the largest community in the planning area not located on or near the Colorado River. Ajo was founded by the New Cornelia Copper Company in about 1915. Phelps Dodge acquired the property in 1931 and continued to operate the mine until 1985. At that time most of the company-owned non-mining properties were sold to the residents and the unincorporated community is now a tourist and retiree destination. However, because of rising copper prices, Phelps Dodge is evaluating reopening the mine. Three water companies serve the town. (ADOC, 2007a) The largest system is the Ajo Improvement Company owned by the Phelps Dodge Corporation. It pumps water from two active wells in the Child’s Well Field, seven miles north of Ajo, at a depth of 1,170 to 1,350 feet. It also provides sewer services and wastewater treatment. Effluent is not reused but is discharged to evaporation ponds. Ajo Improvement Company delivers groundwater to two other water systems: Arizona Water Company-Ajo System and Ajo Domestic Water Improvement District (DWID), neither of which operate their own wells to serve customers. (Malcolm Pirnie, 2006) In 2003, Ajo Improvement Company served about 550 acre-feet of groundwater to 3,000 residents (1,390 service connections) and to the two other water systems. In 2006 its customer demand was about 320 acre-feet, of which 60% was residential and 40% commercial. In that year the Ajo DWID received about 40 acre-feet of water from the Ajo Improvement Company and served about 405 residents. (Phelps Dodge Corporation, 2007) In 2006, Arizona Water Company received about 180 acre-feet of water from the Ajo Improvement Company. Arizona Water Company-Ajo System serves about 686 connections, 73% residential and 27% non-residential. (Arizona Water Company, 2007) There is a nine-hole golf course in Ajo but the source of irrigation water is not known. Gila Bend The municipal water demand at Gila Bend is about 840 acre-feet a year for residential and commercial uses. Located at a transportation hub, the town has a number of gas stations, mini-marts, hotels and fast-food restaurants. In 2004, it reported 730 connections were served groundwater from three wells with water levels at 300 feet below land surface (ADWR, 2005b). About 400 acrefeet of effluent is generated at the Gila Bend Wastewater Treatment Plant and all is discharged to a watercourse. Other municipal water demands in the northern part of the Gila Bend Basin include two large prisons, the Arizona State Prison Lewis Complex and the Eagle Point School Juvenile Corrections Facility, located on either side of Highway 85 in T2S R4W (see Figure 7.2-10). An associated Arizona Department of Corrections wastewater treatment plant generates over 400 acre-feet of effluent so water demand at the site is likely between 600 and 800 acre-feet per year. There is a Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 51 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 small residential community located around a constructed water ski lake in the northern part of T4S R4W and another, Spring Mountain Ski Ranch, under construction in T3S R4W. These types of development are easier to construct outside of the state’s active management areas since within an AMA, groundwater may not be used to fill a private lake larger than 12,320 square feet (about 0.28 acres) in area. Wellton Wellton is located in the middle of the Wellton-Mohawk Valley along Interstate 8 and serves as a business, service and recreation center for more than 5,000 people in the surrounding area. The Town of Wellton had a population of almost 2,000 in 2005 and grew by 72% between 1990 and 2000. The municipal water system receives Colorado River water from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District and maintains one well for emergency backup. In 2003 the town served 640 acre-feet of surface water to 550 residential and commercial connections. New developments in the area, such as the master planned Coyote Wash, will increase municipal water demand. This planned community would include 2,500 homes, a condominium complex and shopping center, and an 18-hole golf course. The golf course has been completed and more than 500 lots sold. Another 18-hole course (Butterfield) at Wellton uses about 441 acre-feet of surface water annually. Quartzsite Although the water system for the Town of Quartzsite is not large, the community is rapidly growing with 3,600 residents in 2005. Located in the middle of the Parker Basin at the junction of Interstate 10 and U.S. 95, it is a tourist and retirement community with a population that swells in the winter with numerous gem and rock shows. There are an estimated 1.5 million annual visitors (ADOC, 2007b). Principal water uses in the town are residential and commercial. Information on water demand is not currently available. It is known that for years, private domestic wells were the only water supply and several hundred exist within the town limits. A public water system was established in 1989 consisting of one main well with a well depth of 1,200 feet and a small, 35 gpm auxiliary well for back up. Plans are underway to drill a second large well. (Town of Quartzsite, 2003) Quartzsite has a 4th Priority Colorado River entitlement of 1,070 acre-feet but no way to convey this water to the town. In addition to the Town of Quartzsite public water system, two, small private water companies, Desert Gardens RV Park and Q-Mountain MHP serve Quartzsite. The Q-Mountain system has 214 connections served by four wells that delivered about 43 acre-feet of water in 2003. Agricultural Demand The planning area contains one of the largest agricultural areas in Arizona and the nation. Yuma County, which contains most of the agricultural lands in the planning area, is considered the nation’s winter vegetable capital. Crops grown here include head and leaf lettuce, romaine, broccoli, cauliflower, honeydew, cantaloupe, watermelon, cabbage, spring mix, celery, endive/escarole, and citrus including lemons, oranges, grapefruit, and tangerines. Many seed crops are also grown including broccoli, cauliflower, grasses, and onions. Annual agricultural sales are reported to total over $1.3 billion. In La Paz County, upland cotton is the largest crop, followed by Durum wheat, 52 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.0-14 Irrigation districts in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area barley, corn for grain, and alfalfa. Other crops include onions, honeydews, cantaloupe and watermelon. Annual agricultural sales are reported to total over $92 million in this county. (AZDA, 2005) There are 13 irrigation districts in the planning area. Their general location is shown in Figure 7.0-14. Irrigation water supply is primarily water diverted from the Colorado River. As shown in Table 7.0-13 and Figure 7.0-15, for the period 2001-2003, an average of 1,830,000 acre-feet per year was diverted from the Colorado River for use in the Parker, Lower Gila and Yuma Basins and 90,000 acre-feet was diverted via the Central Arizona Project for Figure 7.0-15 Irrigation water supply for the Lower use in the Harquahala Basin. Gila Colorado River Planning Area, 2001-2003 River water and effluent averaging 54,500 acre-feet per year was used in the Gila Bend Basin. An average of 999,700 acre-feet of water withdrawn from wells was used Groundwater to irrigate lands in all basins with 34% agricultural demand. Agricultural demand is greatest in the Yuma, Parker, Lower Gila, Gila Bend, McMullen Valley, and Harquahala basins. As shown in Figure 7.0-16, agricultural demand has steadily increased over time in most of these basins. Agricultural demand in each basin is described below. Colorado River 61% CAP 3% Gila River/Effluent 2% Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 53 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-13 Agricultural demand in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area1 1991-1995 (acre-feet) Butler Valley 1996-2000 (acre-feet) 2001-2003 (acre-feet) Groundwater Total 3,400 3,400 8,300 8,300 8,700 8,700 Groundwater Surface Water 2 Total Harquahala Groundwater Surface Water 3 Total Lower Gila Basin Groundwater Surface Water Total McMullen Valley Groundwater Total Parker Groundwater Surface Water Total Ranegras Plain Groundwater Total San Simon Wash Groundwater Total Yuma Groundwater Surface Water Total Total All Basins 237,000 71,500 308,500 244,000 68,500 312,500 291,000 54,500 345,500 9,500 47,500 57,000 23,500 85,000 108,500 31,000 90,000 121,000 254,000 365,000 619,000 261,000 391,000 652,000 282,000 399,000 681,000 77,000 77,000 79,500 79,500 98,000 98,000 1,300 662,000 663,300 <1,000 667,000 667,500 <1,000 653,000 653,500 29,500 29,500 32,000 32,000 28,500 28,500 4,000 4,000 3,800 3,800 4,000 4,000 206,000 771,000 977,000 2,738,700 218,000 771,000 989,000 2,853,100 256,000 778,000 1,034,000 2,974,200 Gila Bend Source: USGS 2005b Notes: Volume <1,000 acre-feet assumed to be 500 acre-feet for computational purposes 1 Unless otherwise noted, all surface water if from the Colorado River 2 From Gila River and Effluent 3 From Central Arizona Project water Butler Valley Basin Recent agricultural demand in the Butler Valley Basin is about 8,700 acre-feet a year, or 0.3% of the total agricultural demand in the planning area. Demand has more than doubled compared to the 1971-1990 time period (Table 7.1-8). Agricultural lands are located in a contiguous area in the southwest part of the basin and groundwater is the only water supply. 54 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Demand (in Thousand Acre-Feet) Figure 7.0-16 Agricultural demand in selected basins in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, 1991-2003 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Harquahala McMullen Valley Gila Bend Lower Gila Basin Parker Yuma 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2003 Gila Bend Basin Irrigation in the Gila Bend Basin is located primarily along the Gila River valley and south of the Gila River in the western part of the basin. Recent agricultural demand has been about 345,500 acrefeet per year of which 291,000 acre-feet is groundwater and 54,500 acre-feet is a mixture of Gila River surface water, agricultural drainage and effluent discharged upstream in the Phoenix AMA. Gila Bend Basin agricultural demand is 12% of the total planning area agricultural demand. Surface water/effluent supplies are used in the northern part of the basin where they are diverted at Gillespie Dam. Until 1993, when Gillespie Dam was breached during a flood, more surface water was used. Surface water has been a less reliable supply than groundwater due to upstream dams and diversions and the unpredictability of flow even under pre-development conditions. Total agricultural demand has increased steadily from an annual average of 278,000 acre-feet during the 1986-1990 time period. However, recent demand is somewhat lower than some historical demands, for example an annual average of 376,000 acre-feet was used for agriculture during the 1976-1980 time period (see Table 7.2-8). Investigations conducted by the USGS during the summer of 2007 found about 42,900 acres are currently under irrigation and all acreage is flood irrigated. The predominant cropped acreage at that time was alfalfa/hay (81%), followed by sorghum (9%), and small areas of cotton, corn, oats, wheat and jojoba. (USGS, 2007, unpublished data) Harquahala Basin The number of irrigation acres allowed in the Harquahala Basin is limited because of the basin’s designation as an irrigation non-expansion area, or INA. Groundwater may be pumped and Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 55 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 transported to an AMA from agricultural lands in the basin pursuant to A.R.S. 45 § 554. In an INA farmers must report agricultural water pumpage and use on an annual basis to the Department. Recent demand has been about 121,000 acre-feet a year, the highest average demand reported since 1971 (Table 7.4-8). This demand is 4% of the total recent agricultural demand in the planning area. Non-contract CAP water began to be used in 1984 by the Harquahala Valley Irrigation District, replacing groundwater pumpage as the primary water supply in the basin. Under the Department’s Recharge Program, the District is a permitted groundwater savings facility. District lands are the most extensive in the basin, covering a large area in the southeast part of the basin. All irrigation canals and laterals are concrete-lined (ADWR, 1998). Other irrigated areas exist near Centennial and south of the Buckeye-Salome Road in the northwest part of the basin. An investigation conducted by the USGS in the summer of 2007 found 26,165 acres under irrigation in the basin. At that time, about 33% of the cropped acreage was alfalfa/hay, 26% cotton, 15% vegetables, and 14% wheat. Oats, sorghum and corn were also observed. About 85% of the lands were found to be flood irrigated and 15% were drip irrigated. (USGS, 2007, unpublished data) Lower Gila Basin The Lower Gila Basin contains 23% of the recent agricultural demand in the planning area. The principal farming area is the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, whose location generally follows the Gila River Valley west of Dateland and extends into the Yuma Basin. Other irrigated areas are located north and west of Dateland, north of Hyder, near Agua Caliente (south of Hyder) and in the Dendora Valley near the eastern basin boundary. The USGS conducted a field investigation of non-district lands in the summer of 2007 and found much less land being irrigated north of Hyder than suggested by Figure 7.4-10. The USGS found 20,750 acres being irrigated on non-district lands. Principal cropped acreage observed was alfalfa/hay (34%), vegetables (24%), jojoba (11%), sorghum (10%), citrus (8%), and lesser amounts of cotton, corn, date/palm trees and oats. Irrigation methods vary in this area with 51% of the acreage flood irrigated, 21% sprinkler, 16% drip and 12% center pivot (primarily north of Dateland). (USGS, 2007, unpublished data) Reclamation’s Gila Project delivers Colorado River water to two divisions - the Wellton-Mohawk Division and the Yuma Mesa Division. The WMIDD was created in 1951 to provide a legal entity that could contract with the United States to repay the cost of the project and to operate and maintain project facilities. Lands in the area have been cultivated for many centuries. During the late 19th century, diversion structures and canals were constructed to expand agricultural lands, but periodic floods and construction of upstream reservoirs led to abandonment of the surface water system and conversion to groundwater wells. However, by the early 1930s, increasing salt concentrations in groundwater and falling groundwater levels made successful farming in the area difficult and many farms were abandoned. Area farmers approached Reclamation for delivery of Colorado River water and the project was constructed during the late 1940s and early 1950s. (WMIDD, 2004) Water for the District is diverted at Imperial Dam into the Gila Canal, a joint-use facility shared by five Yuma Basin irrigation districts (WMIDD, 2004). The WMIDD Colorado River entitlement is diverted into the 18.5 mile long Wellton-Mohawk Canal and to its major branches, the Wellton Canal (19.9 miles long) and the Mohawk Canal (46.8 miles long). The 13-mile long Dome Canal branches off the Wellton-Mohawk Canal west of the major branches and serves the western part 56 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 of the District. There are 13 small pumping plants and 227 laterals in the WMIDD. (USBOR, 2007f) Facilities include 378 miles of main canals, laterals and return flow channels, three major pumping plants, drainage wells and groundwater level observation wells. All canals and laterals are concrete-lined except for eight miles of the main canal west of the first pumping plant. There are also hundreds of domestic turnouts along the system (WMIDD, 2004). The WMIDD has a Colorado River Priority 3 right with a current allowable consumptive use of 278,000 acre-feet per year, but diversions are significantly higher. Diversions to the District averaged 399,000 acre-feet during the 2001-2003 time period. Water pumped from drainage wells and returned to the Colorado River is deemed “return flow” that is subtracted from the District’s diversions to derive its consumptive use. Demand within the WMIDD has remained relatively constant, with a slight recent increase (Table 7.4-8). Principal crops grown are alfalfa/ hay, sorghum, wheat, bermuda, cotton, citrus, melons, lettuce, vegetables, nuts and safflower. A significant amount of double cropping occurs in the district with irrigation done primarily by flood. (WMIDD, 2004) Portable sprinkler systems are used for seed germination of lettuce and other vegetable crops. Long-term irrigation with Colorado River water combined with naturally elevated salt concentrations in groundwater and soil require that salts be leached from the soil by irrigating in excess of the crop consumptive use and removal of excess groundwater to prevent waterlogging. In addition, occasional flooding on the Gila River raises groundwater levels. The District operates 90 drainage wells spaced about a mile apart with an average depth of 100 feet to control rising groundwater levels, keeping water below the root zone of crops. Three-hundred observation wells monitor groundwater levels. (WMIDD, 2004) Because the high salinity of the WMIDD return flows increased the salinity of the Colorado River, a number of actions have been taken to achieve the salinity standards for delivery to Mexico specified in Minute 242. The drainage water is pumped into a concrete-lined channel (Main Outlet Drain and Extension, MOD/MODE), which allows it to be either diverted to the main channel of the Colorado River at the NIB above Morelos Dam, or bypassed around the dam through a canal to the Cienega de Santa Clara. WMIDD has also taken steps within the District to reduce return flows including acreage reduction, improved irrigation scheduling, land-leveling and improvements to ditches and turnouts. (WMIDD, 2004) McMullen Valley Basin About 3% of the recent agricultural demand in the planning area is near the communities of Aguila and Wenden-Salome in the McMullen Valley Basin. There are two irrigation districts in this basin. Neither the Aguila Irrigation District nor the McMullen Valley Water Conservation District has a consolidated distribution system and all district wells and ditches are privately owned. Both districts were formed in order to contract water and power from the Colorado River. (ADWR, 1998) Groundwater is currently the only water supply. Since 1981, agricultural demand in the basin has been increasing with an annual average of 98,000 acre-feet of demand during the 2001-2003 time period. The USGS conducted a field investigation of the basin in the summer of 2007 and found 14,500 acres under irrigation with 80% flood irrigated Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 57 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 and 20% drip irrigated. Cropped acres at the time of the investigation included vegetables (62%), cotton (19%) and sorghum (8%). Other crops observed were oats, guayule, orchards, alfalfa/hay and corn. (USGS, 2007 unpublished data) McMullen Valley is one of the few groundwater basin in the state designated for out of basin transportation of groundwater. About 14,000 acres of agricultural land have already been purchased by the City of Phoenix for transport of groundwater to the Phoenix AMA (ADWR 1994b). Parker Basin Irrigation in the Parker Basin represents 22% of the recent agricultural demand in the planning area. The annual average Colorado River demand for the basin during 2001-2003 was 653,000 acre-feet. A relatively small amount of groundwater, less than 1,000 acre feet, was reportedly pumped for agricultural irrigation. Irrigation occurs primarily on the CRIT Reservation and also within the Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (CVIDD). As mentioned above in the Tribal Demand section, about 72,610 acres were irrigated on the CRIT reservation in 2006. Of this total, CRIT Farms manages over 15,000 acres of alfalfa, cotton, durum wheat and other crops (Colorado River Indian Tribes, 2005). CVIDD was formed in 1962, and in 1964 the southern half of the district was incorporated into the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. There is an integrated canal system and all main canals are owned by the district and concrete-lined. On average about 3,550 acres of land are irrigated within CVIDD. Primary crops are alfalfa, bermuda and cotton, although a variety of other crops are grown including vegetables, wheat and barley. (ADWR, 1998) Colorado River water is the sole source of water. CVIDD has a Priority 4 Colorado River entitlement of 12,066 acre-feet and 5th and 6th Priority entitlements totaling 3,500 acre-feet. Ranegras Plain Basin Agricultural demand in the Ranegras Plain Basin is about 1% of the recent agricultural demand in the planning area. Average annual demand during 2001 to 2003 was about 28,500 acre-feet, all met from groundwater pumping. Since the 1986-1990 time period, average demand has been relatively stable, varying from 32,000 to 28,500 acre-feet per year (Table 7.7-8). Field investigations by the USGS in the summer of 2007 shows that agricultural activity is occurring primarily along Vicksburg road north of Interstate 10, and north of Highway 72 in the northern part of the basin. Cropped acres at that time were corn (25%), barley (21%), cotton (18%), jojoba (16%) and smaller acreages of alfalfa, guayule and sorghum. Their investigations found 99% of the irrigation was by drip systems and 1% by sprinkler. (USGS, 2007, unpublished data). San Simon Wash Basin Irrigation in the San Simon Wash Basin appears to be restricted to about 2,200 irrigable acres at the end of Reservation Road 21 near the international boundary. Recent average annual demand is estimated to be 4,000 acre-feet of groundwater. Historic withdrawals were higher, up to 11,300 acre-feet per year during the late 1970s. After 1980, the principal crop was alfalfa, irrigated year round (Hollett, 1985). It is not clear whether these lands are currently being irrigated. 58 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Yuma Basin The Yuma Basin is the largest agricultural demand center in the planning area with 35% of the recent demand, an annual average of 1,034,000 acre-feet during the 2001-2003 time period. Of this total demand, 778,000 acre-feet is water diverted from the Colorado River and 256,000 acrefeet is water pumped from wells. Annual demand has increased by over 100,000 acre-feet on average since 1991. Agricultural lands surround Yuma and extend through much of the western part of the basin from north of Fortuna Foothills to San Luis. Bureau of Reclamation Projects Two Reclamation projects serve irrigation water in the basin – the Gila Project and the Yuma Project. Water for the Gila Project is diverted at Imperial Dam and delivered via the Gila Gravity Main Canal. The project is separated into the Wellton-Mohawk Division (discussed previously) and the Yuma Mesa Division. The Yuma Mesa Division includes three irrigation districts in the basin: Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District (Yuma Mesa IDD), North Gila Irrigation District (North Gila ID) and Yuma Irrigation District (Yuma ID). (USBOR 2007g) The Yuma Project includes lands in both Arizona and California. In Arizona, the project is divided into the Valley Division and the Yuma Auxiliary Division. The Valley Division consists of the Yuma County Water Users Association. Water for the Valley Division is diverted at Imperial Dam into the All-American Canal to the Yuma Main Canal, then through the siphon under the Colorado River at Yuma and into the Valley Division canals. Water for the Yuma Auxiliary Division, also referred to as Unit “B”, is diverted at Imperial Dam and conveyed via the Gila Project Canals to the Unit “B” Irrigation District (Unit “B” ID) (see Figure 7.0-11). Irrigation Districts A total of eight irrigation districts operate in the basin (see Figure 7.0-14). The western part of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District extends into the basin and is discussed above in the Lower Gila Basin section. The general location of the water delivery and drainage infrastructure in the Yuma area including canals, conduits, drains and drainage wells is shown in Figure 7.0-11 and 7.0-17. The three Gila Project/Yuma Mesa Division irrigation districts have a shared 3rd priority entitlement of 250,000 acre-feet a year on 37,187 acres. In addition, North Gila Valley ID has 1st and 2nd Priority entitlements, and Yuma Mesa IDD and Yuma ID have 2nd Priority consumptive use entitlements (see Appendix B). Crops grown on Yuma Mesa IDD lands (the Mesa Unit) include citrus, alfalfa hay and seed, peanuts, cotton and grains. There are about 25,000 irrigated acres in the district. Crops grown on North Gila ID and Yuma ID lands (North and South Gila Units) include alfalfa, cotton, melons, citrus, winter vegetables and Bermuda grass seed (USBOR, 2007f). About 6,300 acres of the North Gila ID and 9,600 acres of the Yuma ID are irrigated (Yuma Area Ag Council, 2004). The South Gila Valley Unit of the Yuma Mesa Division consists of 24 drainage wells (Figure 7.0-17). Water is conveyed to the Gila River Pilot Channel and the Colorado River to become part of the Treaty water delivered to Mexico. (USBOR, 2007g) Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 59 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Unit “B” ID is a relatively small district that operates and maintains the water distribution facilities of the Yuma Auxiliary Project. It distributes water to about 3,400 acres of land on the Yuma Mesa. Crops are almost entirely citrus including grapefruit, oranges and lemons. (USBOR, 2007h) The district has a 1st Priority diversion entitlement of 6,800 acre-feet and an unquantified 2nd priority diversion entitlement. Figure 7.0-17 Yuma area drainage fields and conduit Yuma County Water Users systems Association provides water to the Yuma Valley south of Interstate 8. It encompasses all of the Colorado River flood-plain land, approximately 53,000 acres, between the City of Yuma and the international boundary. YCWUAassumed operation and maintenance of Valley Division works of the Yuma Project in 1951 and the Siphon Drop Power Plant 1962. There are approximately 28,800 irrigable acres in the district (Yuma Area Ag Council, 2004). YCWUA has an annual Colorado River entitlement of 254,200 acrefeet or, the consumptive use for irrigation of 43,562 acres (whichever is less) of 1st and 4th Priority water. Principal crops grown are lettuce and other produce crops in the fall and winter months and wheat, cotton, hay, and melons in the spring and summer months. YCWUA recently received funding to line a number of its earthen canals to reduce seepage and conserve water. (BECC, 2003) Excess irrigation water from the Valley Division of the Yuma Project is removed via an open drain that runs through the center of the division and terminates at the Boundary Pumping Plant at the international boundary (see Figure 7.0-17). The main drain and its branches total 56 miles in length. This drainage system is supplemented by 16 drainage wells located along the east side of the Yuma Valley that intercept groundwater flows from Yuma Mesa. YCWUA operates 11 of the wells and Reclamation operates the others. Most of this pumped water is discharged into the open 60 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 drain. At the Boundary Pumping Plant, the drainage water is discharged into the bypass canal that flows into Mexico (USBOR, 2007i). Gila Monster Farms is a relatively small operation located north of the Yuma ID and west of the Wellton-Mohawk IDD. It has 1st Priority diversion rights of 780 acre-feet a year and 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th priority rights for a total entitlement of 9,156 acre-feet (see Appendix B). Water is delivered through the Gila Gravity Main Canal. In 2002, the total irrigated area covered 1,780 acres. Hillander “C” Irrigation and Drainage District, located north of the international boundary east of San Luis, pumps groundwater to irrigate about 2,300 acres within the 3,440 acre district. Historic use was between 15,000 and 20,000 acre-feet per year for irrigation of citrus and asparagus. Center pivot systems in the area suggest that alfalfa or other crops may be grown. The District is located adjacent to the 242 well field and has a contract to pump up to 4,000 acre-feet of water annually from the 242 Lateral (see Section 7.0.6). Industrial Demand Recent industrial demand in the Lower Colorado River planning area has averaged 14,850 acre-feet a year, about 0.5% of the total demand. As shown in Table 7.0-14, most demand is associated with power plants, although dairy and feedlot demand is growing, particularly in the Lower Gila Basin and more recently in the Ranegras Plain Basin. Mining activity in the Yuma Basin is associated with the Yuma Pit, a large sand and gravel operation owned by Rinker Materials in the northern part of the basin east of Highway 95. The New Cornelia Mine, a large open pit copper mining operation at Ajo, was placed on care and maintenance in 1983. There is a possibility that mining and ore processing may resume due to rising copper prices. There are several small gold mines in the planning area including the Yuma King, 30 miles east of Parker. There is also one “industrial” golf course in the Yuma Basin, Yuma Golf and Country Club. Industrial facilities are those with their own well or water supply and not served from a municipal water provider. Table 7.0-14 shows other industrial uses in the Yuma area that use Colorado River water. Additional industrial demand in the planning area not reflected in the table, comes primarily from sand and gravel operations including at least three in the Parker Basin. Some of these operations are identified on the cultural demand maps. Water is used for aggregate washing, dust control, vehicle washing and equipment cooling. Relatively little water is consumed at these sites. Finally, north of Gila Bend, in the Gila Bend Basin, shrimp are pond grown at the Desert Sweet Shrimp operation. About 300,000 pounds of shrimp are produced annually and the shrimp effluent is applied to nearby agricultural fields. Water demand of this aquaculture operation is not known. Power Plants Panda Gila River Power Station is a 2,200 megawatt natural gas fired combined cycle plant located in Gila Bend and completed in 2003. It was approved by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) in 2001 under very strict emissions requirements. The plant has zero water discharge, with concentrated brine effluent disposed to evaporation ponds. The plant used about 4,900 acre-feet of groundwater in 2003. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 61 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-14 Industrial demand in selected years in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Type 1991 2000 Water Use (acre-feet) 2003 Power Plant Total 246 578 7,004 Gila Bend Groundwater 0 0 4,900 Harquahala Groundwater 0 0 1,700 Yuma Surface Water 246 578 404 Golf Course Total 441 441 441 Yuma Groundwater 220 220 220 Surface Water 221 221 221 Dairy/Feedlot Total 3,394 3,573 3,775 Gila Bend Groundwater 0 0 108 Lower Gila 3,394 3,573 3,667 Groundwater Mining Total 291 388 399 Parker Groundwater <300 <300 <300 Yuma 141 238 249 Groundwater Other Total 1,982 3,454 1,161 Yuma Surface Water 1,982 3,454 1,161 Source: ADEQ 2005, ASMMR 2005, ADWR 1994b, ADWR 2007, USGS 2005b Notes: Volume <300 acre-feet assumed to be 150 acre-feet for computation purposes. Other category includes water use by the Yuma Desalting Plant, Union Pacific Railroad, Desert Lawn Memorial, Huerta Packing and Yuma Mesa Fruit Growers The Harquahala Generating Project is a 1,000 megawatt gas-fired combined power facility that came on line in 2003. As a condition of approval by the ACC, the owner agreed to use CAP water as the preferable supply. Groundwater use is allowed but must meet the same siting and permitting requirements of facilities in AMAs. The facility is designed to be zero water discharge and treats and recycles water more than 130 times to minimize consumption. (PG&E Corporation, 2000) The facility used about 1,700 acre-feet of groundwater in 2003. Arizona Public Service (APS) operates the natural gas-fueled Yucca Power Plant near Yuma. There are four combustion turbine units that produce nearly 150 megawatts of power to APS customers. The plant’s other combustion turbine unit and one steam unit are owned by the Imperial Irrigation District in California. The plant provides power on an as needed basis, particularly during the summer months. (APS, 2007) The plant, which has a 1,500 acre-feet of 5th priority entitlement, used about 400 acre-feet of Colorado River water in 2003. 62 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Dairy/Feedlot There are a number of dairy and feedlot operations in the planning area and these facilities are a growing demand sector due to development pressures and land costs in more urban parts of the state. Dairies and feedlots are located adjacent to irrigated land where feed is grown and where disposal of wastes can occur. In 2003, Citrus Valley Dairy was the only dairy operating in the Gila Bend Basin with a groundwater demand of about 100 acre-feet. Painted Rock Dairy began operation the next year and the combined demand in 2004 was 173 acre-feet for an estimated 1,600 animals. There are two dairies in the Lower Gila Basin, G.H. Dome Valley and Hine Hettinga, with a recent demand of 152 acre-feet and 94 acre-feet respectively. These dairies house a combined total of 1,900 animals. There are also two feedlots in the basin. The Kammann Cattle Company used about 27 acre-feet of water for about 800 animals while McElhaney Cattle used about 3,394 acrefeet for an estimated 101,000 animals in 2003. Two dairy facilities are scheduled to begin operations soon in the Ranegras Plain Basin, west of Vicksburg road. One of the facilities will be a dairy/biorefinery. The facility is designed to use cow waste products to produce energy to process corn (not grown locally) into ethanol and biodiesel. Byproducts of the fuel production will be cycled back to the biorefinery and provide feed for the cows. About 2,500 cows will initially be housed at the site with plans to eventually house about 7,500 cows. The second phase of the project involves growing algae on 2,400 acres of adjacent state land using wastewater from the dairy to produce ethanol and biodiesel. (East Valley Tribune, 2007) 7.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Water resource issues in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area have been identified by local water users, in regional studies primary involving Colorado River water supplies, through the distribution of surveys and from other sources. There are no ADWR Rural Watershed Initiative Groups in the planning area. Colorado River and groundwater transportation issues, planning and conservation activities and results from water provider surveys are discussed in this section. Environmental protection and restoration, and local management of water resources to meet the needs of growing communities while maintaining the agricultural economy are important considerations in the planning area. Colorado River Issues Issues involving the Colorado River system have implications for resource management and supply availability in the planning area. Issues include consequences related to compliance with the International Treaty with Mexico, agreement on management of the Colorado River system under shortage conditions in a manner equitable for all users, salinity control and water quality, entitlement transfers, and accounting surface rulemaking. Information on the “Law of the River” and more detailed discussion of some of the issues discussed below is found in Appendix C. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 63 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Mexican Treaty Compliance with conditions of the delivery of 1.5 maf of water to Mexico under the 1944 Treaty and Minute 242 have required significant investments and actions within the U.S. and in the planning area. Actions have included rerouting agricultural return flows, construction of the 242 wellfield to return higher quality water to the Colorado River, on farm improvements and other actions. A consequence of bypassing high salinity water around the river to the Cienega de Santa Clara in Mexico has reestablished a rich, ecologically important wetland and sparked interest in maintaining the area in its present condition. In dry years, bypassing the water to the Cienega results in Lake Mead storage decreasing by approximately 100,000 acre-feet annually since the bypassed water must be “made-up” from storage in Lake Mead. Recently, the decrease in Lake Mead storage after more than a decade of drought has increased the risk of shortage to Arizona Colorado River water users. Actions upstream that would affect the delivery of the bypass water, including reactivation of the Yuma Desalting Plant to treat this water to a salinity level that would allow it to be discharged to the Colorado, would impact the Cienega. This is an issue with a high degree of international sensitivity. In 2005 a YDP/Cienega de Santa Clara Workgroup formed to discuss solutions that would both preserve the Cienega and offset the impact of the continued bypass of water. Shortage Sharing As mentioned in Section 7.0.6, Reclamation issued a Record of Decision in December, 2007 on interim operating criteria (2008-2026), including the coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead and criteria for implementing shortage reductions in the Lower Basin. The elements of the ROD, which includes rules for shortages and surpluses, coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, and water conservation, have implications for water supply availability in the planning area. The shortage recommendation implements water supply reductions when Lake Mead water storage is depleted to key elevation triggers. In Arizona, hydrologic modeling indicates that shortage reductions will impact 4th, 5th and 6th priority water users. The available shortage water supply is sufficient to meet all higher priority water users. However, some reductions to on-river municipal and industrial and agricultural contractors and to the CAP excess pool are expected. Salinity and Other Water Quality Issues Increased salinity levels in the Colorado River affect agricultural, municipal and industrial users. Damages in the United States are estimated at $330 million per year, and while economic damage in Mexico is not quantified, it is also a significant concern. The EPA approved salinity standards proposed by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum for three locations in Arizona, including two in the planning area. The water quality standards establish a flow-weighted average annual salinity standard that must be maintained on the lower Colorado River at the following locations in the planning area: Below Parker Dam (to Imperial Dam) - 747 mg/L • • At Imperial Dam - 879 mg/L. 64 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 In 2005, the Governor of Arizona appointed The Clean Colorado River Alliance (Alliance) stakeholder group to address water quality issues for the Colorado River. In addition to salinity, the Alliance identified several other water quality concerns including nutrients, metals, endocrine disrupting compounds, perchlorate, bacteria and pathogens, and sediment. In 2006, the Alliance issued a report titled Clean Colorado River Alliance Recommendations to Address Colorado River Water Quality. The report includes a number of recommendations to monitor and mitigate the impacts of these pollutants. Entitlement Transfers Arizona communities along the Colorado River that rely on the river for their water supplies have experienced rapid growth over the last decade. These communities are unique because nonColorado River water supplies are not readily available as a supplementary water supply to meet this growing demand. As a result, some entities have acquired existing irrigation entitlements through contract assignment actions for the purpose of eventually conveying those entitlements for municipal and industrial purposes. Contract assignments involve the transfer of an entitlement for the same type of use in the same location, whereas the conveyance of an entitlement entails a change in the type and/or place of use. Non-federal Arizona contractors of mainstream Colorado River entitlements are required to consult with the Director of the Department regarding any proposed contract actions. The Department reviews proposed actions in accordance with its Policy and Procedures for Transferring an Entitlement of Colorado River Water and makes a recommendation to Reclamation. Since adoption of the Policy and Procedures in 2004, the Department has processed three assignment and two conveyance requests. The assignments and conveyances involve partial transfers of Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District’s Colorado River irrigation entitlement. CVIDD, located in the southern part of the Parker Basin, assigned a portion of its entitlement to the Mohave County Water Authority (MCWA), the Hopi Tribe and Cibola Resources. Subsequent to these transactions, MCWA conveyed a majority of its entitlement to Mohave County for eventual use in Lake Havasu and Bullhead cities and assigned the remaining amount to the Arizona Game and Fjish Commission for habitat restoration purposes in Cibola Valley. Upon acquisition of its contract, Cibola Resources immediately conveyed its entitlement to B&F Investments, LLC for use by a proposed travel plaza in the Ehrenberg area (see Appendix C). Federal Rulemaking to Establish the Accounting Surface In August 2006, Reclamation initiated a rulemaking process to regulate the non-contract use of Colorado River water in the Lower Basin. The rulemaking is intended to ensure that all Colorado River water use is covered by an entitlement and correctly accounted for within the state’s apportionment. Reclamation has contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey to document noncontract water uses in the Lower Basin. The rule will establish the methodology that Reclamation will use to determine if a well is pumping Colorado River water and will also establish an appeal process. At this time, approximately 11,500 acre-feet of unallocated fourth-priority Colorado River water is available for allocation. Some of this water will be allocated to existing uses, after currently uncontracted uses have been quantified. The inventory is expected to provide comprehensive information about existing water uses that need an entitlement. The Department will use this information to allocate the remaining supply for domestic purposes. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 65 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Groundwater Transportation In general, groundwater cannot be transported between groundwater basins or from a groundwater basin outside an AMA into an AMA (A.R.S. §§ 45-544 and 45-551 through 45-555). These restrictions were designed to protect hydrologically distinct groundwater supplies and rural economies by ensuring that groundwater is not depleted in one groundwater basin to benefit another. Three basins in the planning area, Butler Valley, Harquahala and McMullen Valley, are designated as basins from which groundwater may be withdrawn and transported under certain conditions. Information about the statutory provisions is found in Section 7.0.6. As of December 2007, only the City of Phoenix has purchased agricultural land in the McMullen Valley Basin for the purpose of potentially transferring groundwater to the Phoenix AMA. In addition, the Department has received an application for transportation of groundwater from the Harquahala Basin. As competition for water supplies in AMAs increases, it is likely that additional applications will be filed. Although the rate of groundwater decline and pumping depth are regulated in the McMullen Valley and Harquahala basins, there are no specified limits for the Butler Valley Basin. Withdrawal and transportation of groundwater may cause groundwater level declines and impact the groundwater supply available for use within the basins. Planning and Conservation On January 1, 2007, all large (>1,850 customers) community water systems in the state were required to submit System Water Plans to the Department. Small systems have until January 1, 2008, to submit their plans. The plans are intended to reduce community water systems’ vulnerability to drought, and to promote water resource planning to ensure that water providers are prepared to respond to water shortage conditions. Within the planning area plans have been submitted by the large systems of the City of Yuma, Town of Parker, Ajo Improvement Company/Phelps Dodge Corporation, City of Somerton, and Arizona Water Company-Ajo System (a small system). On June 1, 2007, 48 systems (small and large) in the planning area were required to submit an annual water use report with data on water pumped, diverted, received and delivered to customers. These data will help support water resource planning. Local Drought Impact Groups (LDIGs) are being formed in all counties across Arizona. LDIGs are voluntary groups that will coordinate drought public awareness, provide impact assessment information to local and state leaders, and implement and initiate local drought mitigation and response actions. These groups are coordinated by local representatives of Arizona Cooperative Extension and County Emergency Management and supported by ADWR’s Community Water Planning Program. To date, groups have not been formed in La Paz or Yuma counties but there are plans to organize groups within the next year. To support the efforts of the LDIGs, professionals and residents are asked to provide monthly feedback on drought conditions throughout their county. Citizens may also participate with the LDIG by assisting with education and outreach efforts and recommending actions for drought mitigation and response. More information on LDIGs may be found at http://www.azwater.gov/ dwr/drought/LDIG.html. 66 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Issue Surveys The Department conducted a rural water resources survey in 2003 to compile information for the public and help identify the needs of growing communities. This survey was also intended to gather information on drought impacts to incorporate into the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, adopted in 2004. Questionnaires were sent to almost 600 water providers, jurisdictions, counties and tribes, and a report of the findings from the survey was subsequently completed (ADWR, 2004). There were 15 water provider and 2 jurisdiction respondents in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area and of these, 17 numerically ranked issues. Respondents were asked to rank 18 issues, which can be grouped into three general categories: infrastructure, water supply and water quality. Issues that ranked consistently high by the most respondents are shown in Table 7.0-15. As shown, most respondents were concerned about aging infrastructure and the ability to fund improvements, and had water quality concerns. Few respondents were concerned about inadequate storage or pumping capacity to meet future demand or the need for additional water supplies. The Department conducted another, more concise survey of water providers in 2004. This was done to supplement the information gathered in the previous year in support of developing the Arizona Water Atlas, and to reach a wider audience by directly contacting each water provider. Through this effort, 31 water providers in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, with a total of approximately 40,200 service connections, participated and provided information on water supply, demand, and infrastructure and ranked a list of seven issues. Respondents were from the Gila Bend, Harquahala, Lower Gila, McMullen Valley, Parker and Yuma basins. Table 7.0-15 Water resource issues ranked by 2003 survey respondents in Lower Colorado River Planning Area (15 water providers and 2 17the respondants jurisdictions) Issue Ranked as one of the top Percent of respondents 5 issues (out of 18) Ability to meet new arsenic standards 6 35% Concern about proximity of wells to sources of contamination 5 29% Aging infrastructure in need of replacement 11 65% Inadequate captial for infrastructure improvement 6 35% Source: ADWR 2004 With regard to a question of groundwater level trends in their service area, there were 21 respondents and most reported stable water levels as shown by basin with the corresponding number of respondents in Table 7.0-16. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 67 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-16 Groundwater level trends reported by 2004 survey respondents by 21 respondents groundwater basin (21 respondents) Basin Rising Stable Gila Bend Falling Variable Don't Know 1 Harquahala 1 Lower Gila 1 1 3 McMullen Valley 1 Parker 3 Yuma 6 1 2 1 Source: ADWR 2005c Water providers were asked in the 2004 survey to rank seven issues from 0 to 3 with 0 = no concern, 1 = minor concern, 2 = moderate concern and 3 = major concern. There were 31 respondents that reported a concern. As shown in Table 7.0-17, infrastructure concerns ranked as important concerns, similar to the 2003 survey. This was especially of concern to providers in the Lower Gila Basin (Table 7.0-18). Unlike results from the 2003 survey, this group of respondents was comprised of more large water providers and expressed concern about storage capacity and supplies to meet future demand. Table 7.0-17 Water resource issues ranked by 2004 survey respondents in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area (31 respondents) Issue Inadequate storage capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate well capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate supplies to meet current demand Inadequate supplies to meet future demand Infrastructure in need of replacement Inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements Drought related water supply problems Source: ADWR 2005c Moderate concern Major concern Total Percent of respondents reporting issue was a major or moderate concern 2 6 8 26% 1 2 3 10% 2 0 2 6% 3 4 7 23% 6 8 14 45% 4 14 18 58% 1 1 2 6% 68 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-18 Number of 2004 survey respondents, by groundwater basin, that ranked the 31 respondents survey water resource issues a moderate or major concern (31 respondents) Issue Inadequate storage capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate well capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate supplies to meet current demand Inadequate supplies to meet future demand Infrastructure in need of replacement Inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements Drought related water supply problems Source: ADWR 2005c Gila Bend (1) (11) McMullen Valley (8) 3 1 Harquahala Lower Gila (1) 1 Parker Yuma (4) (11) 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 2 3 2 6 2 2 6 1 1 3 2 7.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics Sections 7.1 through 7.11 present data and maps on water resource characteristics of the groundwater basins in the Western Plateau Planning Area. A description of the data sources and methods used to derive this information is found in Section 1.3 of Volume 1 of the Atlas. This section briefly describes general information that applies to all of the basins and the purpose of the information. This information is organized in the order in which the characteristics are discussed in Sections 7.1 through 7.11. Geographic Features Geographic features maps are included to present a general orientation to principal land features, roads, counties and cities, towns and places in the groundwater basin. Land Ownership The distribution and type of land ownership in a basin has implications for land and water use. Large amounts of private land typically translate into opportunities for land development and associated water demand, whereas federal lands are typically maintained for a purpose with little associated water use. State owned land may be sold or traded, and is often leased for grazing and farming. The extent of state owned lands is due to a number of legislative actions. The State Enabling Act of 1910 and the Act that established the Territory of Arizona in 1863 set aside sections 2, 16, 32 and 36 in each township to be held in trust by the state for educational purposes. Other legislation authorized additional state trust lands for specified purposes, which are identified for each basin (ASLD, 2006). Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 69 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Climate Climate data including temperature, rainfall, evaporation rates and snow are critical components of water resource planning and management. Averages and variability, seasonality of precipitation and long term climate trends are all important factors in demand and supply planning. Surface Water Conditions Depending on physical and legal availability, surface water may be a potential supply in a basin. Stream gage, flood gage, reservoir, stockpond and runoff contour data provide information on physical availability of this supply. Seasonal flow information is relevant to seasonal supply availability. Annual flow volumes provide an indication of potential volumetric availability. Criteria for including stream gage stations in the basin tables are that there is at least one year of record, and annual streamflow statistics are included only if there are at least three years of record. There are different types of stations and those that only serve repeater functions were not included. Flood gage information is presented to direct the reader to sources of additional precipitation and flow information that can be used in water resource planning. Large reservoir storage information provides data on the amount of water stored in the basin, its uses, and ownership. Because of the large number of small reservoirs, and less reliable data, individual small reservoir data is not provided. The number of stockponds is a general indicator of small scale surface water capture and livestock demand. Runoff contours reflect the average annual runoff in tributary streams. They provide a generalized indication of the amount of runoff that can be expected at a particular geographic location. Perennial and Intermittent Streams and Major Springs A map of perennial and intermittent streams is provided for each basin. For some basins, more than one source of information was used. Stream designations may not accurately reflect current conditions in some cases. Spring data was compiled from a number of sources in an effort to develop as comprehensive a list as possible. Spring data is important to many researchers and to the environmental community due to their importance in maintaining habitat, even from small discharges. Groundwater Conditions Several indicators of groundwater conditions are presented for each basin. Aquifer type can be a general indicator of aquifer storage potential, accessibility of the supply, aquifer productivity, water quality and aquifer flux. Well yield information for large diameter wells is provided and is generally measured when the well is drilled and reported on completion reports. It was assumed that large diameter wells were drilled to produce a maximum amount of water and, therefore, their reported pump capacities are indicative of the aquifer’s potential to yield water to a well. However, many factors can affect well yields including well design, pump size and condition and the age of the well. Reported well yields are only a general indicator of aquifer productivity and specific information is available from well measurements conducted as part of basin investigations. Natural recharge is typically the least well known component of a water budget. Many of the estimates in the Atlas are derived from studies of larger geographic areas and all deserve further 70 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 study. Similarly, estimates of storage are based on rough estimates and considerably more studies are needed in most basins. Components of storage include aquifer depth and specific yield. Water level data is from measured wells, usually collected during the period when the wells were not actively being pumped or only minimally pumped. Depth to water measurements are shown on mapped wells if there was a measurement taken during 2003-2004. The basin hydrographs show water-level trends for selected wells over the 30-year period from January 1975 to January 2005. Not all basins have a sufficient number of representative hydrographs. The flow directions that are shown generally reflect long-term, regional aquifer flow in the basin and are not meant to depict temporary or local-scale conditions. However, flow directions in some basins indicate how localized pumping has altered regional flow patterns. Water Quality Water quality conditions impact the availability of water supplies. Water quality data was compiled from a variety of sources as described in Volume 1 Section 1.3. The data indicate areas where water quality exceedences have previously occurred, however additional areas of concern may currently exist where water quality samples have not been collected or sample results were not reviewed by the Department (e.g. samples collected in conjunction with the ADEQ Aquifer Protection Permit programs). It is important to note also that the exceedences presented may or may not reflect current aquifer or surface water conditions. Cultural Water Demand Cultural water demand is an important component of a water budget. However, without mandatory metering and reporting of water uses, accurate demand data is difficult to acquire. Municipal demand includes water company and domestic (self-supplied) demand estimates. Basin demand information is from several sources in order to prepare as accurate an estimate as possible. Annual demand estimates have been averaged over a specific time period. This provides general trend information without focusing on potentially inaccurate annual demand estimates due to incomplete data. Locations of major cultural water uses are primarily from a 2004 USGS land cover study using older satellite imagery that may not represent recent changes. The cultural demand maps provide only general information about the location of water users. Effluent generation data was compiled from several sources to provide an estimate of how much of this renewable resource might be available for use. However, effluent reuse is often difficult both logistically and economically since a potential user may be far from the wastewater treatment plant. Water Adequacy Determinations Information on water adequacy and inadequacy determinations for subdivisions, with the reason for the inadequacy determination provides information on the number and status of subdivision lots. Listing the reason for the inadequacy identifies which subdivisions have a demonstrated physical or legal lack of water or may have elected not to provide the necessary information to Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 71 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 the Department. Briefly, developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is sufficient water of adequate quality available for 100 years. If the supply is determined to be inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must be disclosed in promotional materials and in sales documents. In addition to these subdivision determinations for which a water adequacy report is issued, water providers may apply for adequacy designations for their entire service area. If a subdivision is to be served water from one of these water providers, then a separate adequacy determination is not required. (See Appendix A, Volume 1 for more information about the Adequacy Program). 72 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 REFERENCES Anderson, T.W., Freethy, G.W. and Tucci, P., 1992, Geohydology and Water Resources of Alluvial Basins in South-Central Arizona and Parts of Adjacent States-Regional Aquifer-System Analysis: USGS Professional Paper 1406.B. Arizona Department of Agriculture (AZDA), 2005, Yuma County: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.azda.gov/Main/yuma.htm Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), 2007a, Ajo Community Profile: Accessed December, 2007 at www.azcommerce.com ______, 2007b, Quartzite Community Profile: Accessed December, 2007 at www.azcommerce. com ______, 2005, Sells/Tohono O’odham Reservation Community Profile: Accessed October, 2007 at www.azcommerce.com Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Accessed August 2005 at www.workforce.az.gov Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2007a, 20th Street and Factor Avenue Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) Site: Accessed December 2007 at www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/sps/ _____, 2007b, Yuma Marine Corp Air Station National Priorities List (NPL) Site: Accessed December 2007 at www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/sps/ _____, 2007c, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground Department of Defense (DoD) Site: Accessed December 2007 at www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/sps/ _____, 2006a, Active DOD, Superfund, WQARF, and LUST contamination sites in Arizona: GIS cover, received February 2006. _____, 2006b, Brownfield Tracking System: Accessed June 2006 at www.azdeq.gov/ databases/ brownsearch.html. _____, 2005a, Tyson Wash Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) Site, Publication Number FS 05-13: Accessed December 2007 at www.azdeq.gov/environ/ waste/sps/ _____, 2005b, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2002, The Status of Water Quality In Arizona – 2002: Volume 1. Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(b) Listing Report Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 73 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2005a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Water Management Division _____, 2005b, Data from 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005c, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2004, Rural Water Resources Study-Rural Water Resources 2003 Questionnaire Report. _____, 1998, Water Service Organizations in Arizona. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I Inventory and Analysis. Arizona Game and Fish (AZGF), 2004, Explore Arizona: Accessed January 2007 at http:// explore.azgfd.gov _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2004: Land Ownership, GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html Arizona Public Service, 2007, Power Plants: Accessed December 2007 at http://www.aps.com/ general_info/AboutAPS_18.html Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum (ASDM), 2007a, Center for Sonoran Desert Studies-Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands: Accessed November, 2007 at http://www. desertmuseum.org/desert/sonora.php). ______, 2007b, Invaders of the Sonoran Desert Region: Bufflegrass: Accessed October 2007 at: www.desertmuseum.org/invaders.htm Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), 2006, Historical overview-Land Grant and Designation of Beneficiaries: Accessed February 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/history.htm. Arizona Water Company, 2007, Community Water System Report-Ajo: Submitted to ADWR May, 2007 Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), 2003, Yuma County Water Users 74 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Association Water Conservation Improvement Projects.: Accessed November 2007 at http://www.cocef.org/aproyectos/ExcomYuma2003_09ing.htm Brooks, M.L. and Pyke, D.A., 2002, Invasive Plants and Fire in the Deserts of North America, Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: the Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: the First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention and Management. Brown, D. and Lowe, C., 1980, Biotic Communities of the Southwest: GIS Cover digitized by Arizona Game and Fish Department: Accessed in 2007 at http://www.dot.co.pima. az.us/gis/maps/mapguide Brown, D., ed., 1982, Biotic Communities of the Southwest-United States and Mexico, Special Issue of Desert Plants, Volume 4. Numbers 1-4, Published by the University of Arizona for the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum Burns, Saxon, 2007, “Stopping the Spread: The fight against bufflegrass rages on in Southern Arizona.” In Tucson Weekly, April 26, 2007. Carruth, R.L., 1996, Hydrogeology of the Quitobaquito Springs and La Abra Plain Area, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona, and Sonora, Mexico, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4295 City of San Luis, 2007, 2006 Community Water System Annual Report: Submitted to ADWR, June, 2007. City of Somerton, 2006, Somerton Water Supply Plan: Submitted to ADWR, December 2006. City of Yuma, 2007, 2006 Community Water System Annual Report: Submitted to ADWR, June, 2007 _____, 2002, City of Yuma 2002 General Plan, Public Services Element. Cocopah Indian Tribe, 2006, Environmental Protection: Accessed December, 2007 at http:// www.cocopah.com/docs/environ.html Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT), 2005, About the Tribes and Business Opportunities: Accessed December, 2007 at http://critonline.com/index.shtml Dickinson, J.E., Land, M., Faunt, C.C., Leake, S.A., Reichard, E.G., Fleming, J.B., and Pool, R.E., 2006, Hydrogeologic Framework Refinement, Ground-Water Flow and Storage, Water-Chemistry Analyses, and Water-Budget Components of the Yuma Area, Southwestern Arizona and Southeastern California, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5135 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 75 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 East Valley Tribune, 2007, Newspaper article “Land of milk and biofuel”, May 13, 2007. Environmental Law Institute, 2002, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, 2001 Update. Far West Water & Sewer, Inc., 2006, Water Supply & Drought Preparedness Plan: Submitted to ADWR, December, 2006. Glenn, E.P., Nagler, P., Romo, R. and Hinojosa-Huerta, O., 2004, Regeneration of Native Trees and Wetlands in the Delta; In Southwest Hydrology, January/February 2004. Hedley, J.D., 1990, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Harquahala Irrigation Non-Expansion Area and Tiger Wash Basin, Maricopa and La Paz Counties, Arizona-\ 1989. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 17. Hollett, K.J., 1985, Geohydrology and Water Resources of the Papago Farms-Great Plain Area, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona and the Upper Rio Sonoyta Area, Sonora, Mexico USGS Water-Supply Paper 2258. Intertribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), 2003, Cocopah Tribe and Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe: Accessed October, 2007 at www.itcaonline.com Johnson, B.J., 1990, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Ranegras Plain Basin, La Paz and Yuma Counties, Arizona-1988. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 18. Knowles, G., 2003, Aquatic Life in the Sonoran Desert, In Endangered Species Bulletin May/ June 2003 Volume XXVIII No. 3. Malcolm Pirnie, 2006, System Water Plan Ajo Improvement Company Phelps Dodge Corporation: Submitted to ADWR, November 2006. National Atlas of the United States, 2005, National Wilderness Preservation System of the United States: GIS Cover, Accessed December 2007 at http://www.nationalatlas.gov/ atlasftp.html#wildrnp National Park Service (NPS) 2007, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: Accessed October 2007 at http://www.nps.gov/orpi/index.htm Olson, D. M, Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D., Powell, G.V.N., Underwood, E.C., D’amico, J.A., Itoua, I., Strand, H.E., Morrison, J.C., Loucks, C.J., Allnutt, T.F., Ricketts, T.H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J.F., Wettengel, W.W., Hedao, P. & Kassem, K.R., 2001. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth. BioScience 51:933-938 76 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Oram, P, 1987, Map Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Butler Valley Basin, La Paz County, Arizona-1986. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 13. Overby, A., 1997, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Yuma Basin, Yuma County, Arizona-1992. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 30. Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation (PG&E), 2000, PG&E Corporations’s Harquahala Plant Receives Unanimous Approval of Environmental Capatibility Certificate: Press Release, June 8, 2000. Phelps Dodge Corporation, 2007, Community Water System Report-Ajo Improvement Company: Submitted to ADWR May, 2007. Remick, W.H., 1981, Maps Showing Ground-Water Conditions in the McMullen Valley Area, Maricopa, Yavapai, and Yuma Counties, Arizona-1981. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 6. Salton Sea Authority, 2000, Historical Chronology: Accessed November, 2007 at http://www. saltonsea.ca.gov/histchron.htm Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, E.P. and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic Unit Maps; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 pp. Tellman, B., Yarde, R., and Wallace, M., 1997, Arizona’s changing rivers: How people have affected rivers: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Tohono O’odham Utility Authority (TOUA), 2007a, Water: Accessed December 2007 at http:// www.toua.net/water.html ______, 2007b, TOUA 2006 Annual Water Quality Report. Town of Parker, 2006, Parker Water Supply Plan: Submitted to ADWR, December 2006. Town of Quartzsite, 2003, Town of Quartzite 2003 General Plan-Conservation, the Environment and Water Resources Element. Turner, R.M. and Brown, D.E., 1982, Sonoran Desertscrub; In Biotic Communities of the Southwest-United States and Mexico, Special Issue of Desert Plants, Volume 4. Numbers 1-4, Published by the University of Arizona for the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 77 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2007, Sonoran Desert National Monument: Accessed October 2007 at http://www.blm.gov/az/ ______, 2006, Arizona Wilderness Areas: Accessed December 2006 at www.blm.gov/az/ wildarea.htm U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR), 2007a, CRB - Salinity Control Project - Protective and Regulatory Pumping Unit: Accsessed December, 2007 at www.usbr.gov/dataweb/ html/crbscpprpu.html ______, 2007b, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead. ______, 2007c, Parker-Davis Project: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/ dataweb/html/parkerdavis.html ______, 2007d, Colorado River Front Work and Levee System: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/fwls.html ______, 2007e, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Palo Verde Irrigation District, California: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/dams/az10314.htm ______, 2007f, Gila Project Arizona: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/ dataweb/html/gila.html ______, 2007g, Yuma Project Arizona and California: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www. usbr.gov/dataweb/html/yuma.html ______, 2007h, Yuma Auxiliary Project Arizona: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr. gov/dataweb/html/yumaap.html ______, 2007i, Groundwater Recovery and River Regulation Program-Yuma Area Well Fields: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/yuma/facilities/yao_wellfields_map. html _____, 2006, Parker PowerPlant: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/ sites/parker/parker.html _____, 2003, Accounting for Colorado River Water Use within the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada Calendar Year 2003: Accessed December 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/ region/g4000/wtracct.html _____, 2000, Accounting for Colorado River Water Use within the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada Calendar Year 2000: Accessed December 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/ region/g4000/wtracct.html 78 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 1992, Accounting for Colorado River Water Use within the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada Calendar Year 1992: Accessed December 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/ region/g4000/wtracct.html U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, on-line data files: Accessed January 2006 at www.census.gov U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI), 2004, Final Programmatic EIS/EIR Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, Volume 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007a, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge: Accessed October 2007 at http://www.fws.gov/refuges/ _____, 2007b, Cibola National Wildlife Refuge: Accessed October 2007 at http://www.fws.gov/ refuges/ _____, 2007c, Kofa National Wildlife Refuge: Accessed October 2007 at http://www.fws.gov/ refuges/ _____, 2007d, Imperial National Wildlife Refuge: Accessed October 2007 at http://www.fws. gov/refuges/ _____, 2006, Endangered Species List by County: Accessed July 2006 at www.fws.gov/ arizonaes/documents/countylists and www.fws.gov/ifw2es/ endangered species/lists/ default.cfm. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2005a, 1:2,000,000-Scale Hydrologic Unit Boundaries: GIS Cover, accessed in 2007 at http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chpwater #chpwater _____, 2005b, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 2000-2005: Data file, received December 2005. University of Arizona, 2003, A brief history of the Colorado River Delta: Accessed November, 2007 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/colorado_river_delta/delta/intro.html Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD), 2004, History/ Irrigation/ Agriculture/Drainage/ Challenges: Accessed December 2007 at http://www. welltonmohawk.org/html Yuma Area Ag Council, 2004, Yuma Area Irrigation Districts: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.yaac.net/irrigation.html Yuma County, 2000, Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT 79 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 80 Section 7.0 Overview DRAFT Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 81 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.1 Geography of the Butler Valley Basin The Butler Valley Basin, located in the northern part of the planning area, is 288 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal places are shown on Figure 7.1-1. The basin is characterized by a valley bordered by two mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub and a small amount of southwestern interior chaparral on the eastern basin boundary. (See Figure 7.0-7) • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.1-1 are: o Basin places of Camp Bouse and Conley Ranch o Cunningham Wash running northeast to southwest in the northern portion of the basin o Butler Valley bordered by the Harcuvar Mountains on the eastern basin boundary and the Buckskin Mountains on the northwestern basin boundary o Harcuvar Peak at 4,618 feet, the highest point in the basin Not well shown on the map is the lowest point in the basin 1,345 feet at the “Narrows” where Cunningham Wash exits the basin. 82 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT 83 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.2 Land Ownership in the Butler Valley Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Butler Valley Basin is shown in Figure 7.1-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large blocks of U.S. Bureau of Land Management and State Trust lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 55.5% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Yuma Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • BLM land in this basin includes 4,900 acres of the 38,000 acre Rawhide Mountains Wilderness and 11,000 acres of the 25,000 acre Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Land uses include grazing, resource conservation and recreation. State Trust Land • 43.9% of the land is held in trust for the public schools, state charitable penal reform and county bonds under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 0.6% of the land is private. • Small parcels of private land are found surrounded by BLM land in the northern and southern portions of the basin. • Land uses include domestic and ranching. 84 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT 85 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.3 Climate of the Butler Valley Basin The Butler Valley Basin does not contain NOAA/NWS, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. Figure 7.1-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.1-3 • Average annual rainfall is as high as 18 inches along the central eastern basin boundary and as low as six inches in the central western portion of the basin. Table 7.1-1 Climate Data for the Butler Valley Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Min/Month Average Precipitation (in inches) Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual None Source: WRCC, 2003 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in feet) (in inches) for Averages None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Period of Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches Elevation Record Used (Number of years to calculate averages ) (in feet) for Averages None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 86 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT 87 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Butler Valley Basin There are no streamflow data, flood ALERT equipment or USGS runoff contour data available for this basin. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.1-4. The location of large reservoirs is shown on Figure 7.1-4. A description of stream data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of reservoir data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.11. A description of stockpond data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.15. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.1-4. • The basin contains one large reservoir, Cunningham Wash, with a maximum surface area of 143 acres. Its use was not available. • There are no small reservoirs and seven registered stockponds in this basin. 88 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT USGS Station Name Drainage Area (in mi2) Mean Basin Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Station Number None Winter Spring Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Fall Median Mean Maximum Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Minimum Table 7.1-2 Streamflow Data for the Butler Valley Basin Years of Record 89 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.1-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Butler Valley Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility None Table 7.1-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Butler Valley Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE JURISDICTION 1 Cunningham Wash NA 143 NA Private C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 7 Notes: NA = Information is not available to ADWR at this time 90 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT 91 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Butler Valley Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.1-5. There are no perennial or intermittent streams and no major or minor springs in the Butler Valley Basin. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS is one. Table 7.1-5 Springs in the Butler Valley Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and USGS, 2006): 92 1 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Butler Valley Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.1-6. Figure 7.1-5 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.1-6 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.1-5. Figure 7.1-7 shows well yields in four yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.2. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.19. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.1-6 and Figure 7.1-5. • The major aquifer is basin fill. • Flow direction is from northeast to southwest generally following Cunningham Wash. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.1-6 and Figure 7.1-7. • As shown on Figure 7.1-7, well yields generally range from 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 17 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 2,200 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.1-6. • There are two estimates of natural recharge ranging from less than 1,000 acre-feet per year to 1,060 acre-feet per year. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.1-6. • There are five estimates of water in storage ranging from two million acre-feet at a depth of 1,200 feet to 20 million acre-feet at a depth of 1,000 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.1-5. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures thirteen index wells in this basin, hydrographs for three index wells are shown on Figure 7.1-6. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 514 feet west of Conley Ranch and the shallowest water level shown on the map is 86 feet near the southwestern basin boundary. Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT 93 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.1-6 Groundwater Data for the Butler Valley Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 288 Name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Major Aquifer(s): Range 15.6-2,910 Median 1590 (5 wells measured) Range 100-3,200 Median 2,200 (17 wells reported) Well Yields, in gal/min: Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 300-1,000 ADWR (1990) Range 0-2,500 USGS (1994) <1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,060 Herndon (1985) 6,400,000 - 6,500,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990 and 1994) 2,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 5,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) 12,000,000 (to 700 ft) Herndon (1985) 20,000,000 (to 1,000 ft) USBR (1979) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Current Number of Index Wells: 13 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (24 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 94 11/21/2007 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT 95 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.1-6 Butler Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 500 550 200 250 150 200 A WELL DEPTH: 1000 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 B 1985 1995 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 520 ft USE: IRRIGATION 1975 2005 basin fill B-08-14 20DAB WELL DEPTH: 545 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 C basin fill B-08-13 04DDD1 2005 basin fill B-07-15 02DDC 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 96 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT 97 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.7 Water Quality of the Butler Valley Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.1-7A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.1-8 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.1-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mine Sites • Refer to Table 7.1-7A. • Eight wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded was fluoride. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, lead and nitrates. Table 7.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Butler Valley Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Site Location Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 8 North 8 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 14 West 14 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 20 29 2 10 12 13 15 15 As, F As, F, Pb F F As As F F, NO3 B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Stream Reach (in Lake (in acres) miles) Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Water quality samples collected between 1979 and 1998. As = Arsenic NO3 = Nitrate/ Nitrite F = Fluoride Pb = Lead 98 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT 99 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Butler Valley Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 7.1-8. Figure 7.1-9 shows the location of demand centers. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.1-8 and Figure 7.1-9. • Population in this basin is very small, with 18 residents in 2000. Projections suggest a small increase in population through 2050. • There are no surface water diversions in this basin. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation east of Butler Valley Road in the southwestern portion of the basin. Agricultural water use increased 150% from 1991-2003 with 8,700 acre-feet of demand per year on average from 2000 to 2003. • Municipal water demand is minimal and did not increase from 1991 to 2003. • As of 2003 there were 20 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 20 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. 100 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.1-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Butler Valley Basin1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Recent Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered (Census) and Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected (DES) Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation 202 4,000 NR 4,000 NR Data Source 162 5 6 6 0 1 4,000 6 7 8 8 8 0 1 4,000 9 10 10 11 12 0 1 <300 NR 12 13 14 15 16 0 1 <300 NR 16 17 18 19 0 0 <300 NR 20 21 28 38 48 58 68 WELL TOTALS: 20 20 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Data not available for 1991-1993, average shown is 1994-1995 NR - Not reported 12/26/2007 ADWR (1994) NR NR 3,4003 NR 8,300 NR 8,700 NR Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT USGS (2005) 101 Ownership 102 Facility Name City/Location Served Population Served Watercourse Evaporation Pond Irrigation Golf Course Wildlife Area Disposal Method No Waste Water Treatment Facilities Identified by ADWR in this Basin Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Table 7.1-9 Effluent Generation in the Butler Valley Basin Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins Year of Record Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Current Population Not Treatment Served Level Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT 103 Subdivision Name 104 Map Key County Township Range Location ADWR File No. None identified by ADWR at this time Section No. of Lots ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination Table 7.1-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Butler Basin Water Provider at the Time of Application Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Date of Determination No water adequacy applications for the Butler Valley Basin were filed with the Department as of May 2005. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.1. 7.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Butler Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Butler Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2006, Statement of claimants filed by the Indian tribes or the United States on their behalf in the Gila and Little Colorado River adjudications: Data files, ADWR Office of Planning and Adjudications Support. _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT 105 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover.* _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____ , 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index. html.* _____, 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html.* Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* 106 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 F Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 2003: USGS Water-Data Report AZ-03-1.* Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664.* H Herndon, R.L., 1985, Hydrogeology of Butler Valley, AZ: an artificial recharge and groundwater storage pre-feasibility study, University of Arizona, 106 p.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M McCormack, H.F., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2002, Water resources data Arizona, water year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ-02-1.* N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snowcourse stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., and Smith, C.F., 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* T Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT 107 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____ 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http:// www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Supplemental Reading Andersen, Mark, 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Anning, D.W., 2002, Estimation and analysis of the uncertainty in stream flow and change in reservoir-content data at selected stream flow-gauging stations in the Lower Colorado River network, 1995-99: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. 108 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Oram, P., 1987, Map showing groundwater conditions in the Butler Valley Basin La Paz County, Arizona: Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series #13. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 87 p. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for La Paz County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT 109 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Index to Section 7.0 Geography Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 7 12 Environmental Conditions Vegetation 19 Water Supply Groundwater 3 40-41 Cultural Water Use Agricultural Demand 55 Water Resource Issues Groundwater Transportation 66 110 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin DRAFT Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 111 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.1 Geography of the Gila Bend Basin The Gila Bend Basin, located in the east central part of the planning area, is 1,284 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.2-1. The basin is characterized by washes and a series of small mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub. (See Figure 7.0-7) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.2-1 are: o Basin communities of Gila Bend and Theba o The Gila River running east to west in the northern portion of the basin and Painted Rock Reservoir, which during flood events impounds the river o Quilotosa and Sauceda Washes south of Gila Bend o Maricopa and Sand Tank Mountains in the eastern portion of the basin, the Sauceda Mountains in the south and the Gila Bend Mountains in the north o The lowest point in the basin about 660 feet at Painted Rock Dam where the Gila River exits the basin o The highest point in the basin at 3,183 feet in the Maricopa Mountains 112 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 113 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.2 Land Ownership in the Gila Bend Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Gila Bend Basin is shown in Figure 7.2-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large areas of military and Bureau of Land Management lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 41.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Lower Sonoran Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • BLM Land in this basin includes 238,700 acres of the 487,000 acre Sonoran Desert National Monument and 49,000 acres of the 64,000 acre Woolsey Peak Wilderness. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Land uses include resource conservation, recreation and grazing. U.S. Military • 33.5% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military as the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range. • Primary land use is military activity. Private • 15.7% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is in the center of the basin in the vicinity of Gila Bend, Highway 89 and Interstate 8. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. State Trust Land • 6.2% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing. Indian Reservation • 2.8% of the land is under tribal ownership including all of the Gila Bend Indian Reservation and a small portion of the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. Both are part of the Tohono O’odham Nation • Land uses include agriculture, domestic and grazing. Other • 0.1% of the land is owned by Maricopa County. • County land is located on the northern basin boundary and is managed as the Buckeye Hills County Park. • Primary land use is recreation. 114 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 115 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.3 Climate of the Gila Bend Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and AZMET stations are complied in Table 7.2-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.2-3. Figure 7.2-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Gila Bend Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.2-1A • There is one NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station in the basin, Gila Bend, with an annual high temperature of 94.1°F and an average annual low of 55.0°F. • Highest average seasonal rainfall, 2.49 inches, occurs in both the summer (July-September) and fall (October-December) seasons when 66% of the annual average precipitation occurs. AZMET • Refer to Table 7.2-1C • There is one evaporation pan station in the basin, Paloma. This pan is at 719 feet and has an annual evaporation rate of 76.53 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.2-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 14 inches at the southeastern tip of the basin and as low as four inches along the western basin boundary. 116 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-1 Climate Data for the Gila Bend Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Used for Averages Gila Bend 730 1971 - 2000 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 94.1/Jul 55.0/Dec, Jan 2.21 0.39 2.49 2.49 7.01 Source: WRCC, 2003 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Used for Averages Avg. Annual Evaporation (in inches) None Source: WRCC, 2003 C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) (in feet) Used for Averages Paloma 719 76.53 (6) 1992 - current Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Used for Averages Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 117 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 118 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Gila Bend Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 7.2-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.2-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.2-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 7.2-5. A description of stream data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of reservoir data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.11. A description of stockpond data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.15. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 7.2-2. • Data from three stations located at two watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 7.2-5. • Average seasonal flow varies. At the Gila River stations most of the average seasonal flow occurs during winter (January-March) or spring (April-June). At the Sauceda Wash near Gila Bend station, with a small, local drainage area, 86% of the average seasonal flow occurs in the summer season (July-September) and no flow occurs in the spring season (April-June). • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is 5.7 million acre-feet in 1993 at the Gila River below Gillespie Dam station with a contributing drainage area of 49,650 square miles. Gillespie Dam was breached during the 1993 flood. See Figure 7.2-4. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 7.2-3. • Most of the nine ALERT gages in the Gila Bend Basin are located along the Gila River and its tributaries. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.2-4. • The basin contains one large reservoir, Painted Rock, with a maximum storage of 4,831,500 acre-feet. This reservoir is used for flood control and is only filled during flood events. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in two small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 24 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 7.2-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.2 inches per year or 10.66 acre-feet per square mile, in the southernmost portion of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or five acre-feet per square mile, in the remainder of the basin. Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 119 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.2-4 Hydrograph of annual flows for Gila River below Gillespie Dam Station (#9519500), water years 1960-2003 Annual flow, in million acre-feet 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1960 1965 1970 120 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2001 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 49,650 126 50,910 USGS Station Name Gila River below Gillespie Dam Sauceda Wash near Gila Bend Gila River below Painted Rock Dam 9519500 9519760 9519800 NA 1,980 NA Mean Basin Elevation (in feet) 10/1959-2003 10/1989-9/1994 (discontinued) 8/1921-9/2004 Period of Record 36 6 66 Winter 36 0 13 Spring 16 83 7 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 13 10 13 Fall Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Notes: NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Annual Flow/Year statistics were only completed for those gages that had at least 3 years of 12 month records. Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Drainage Area (in mi2) Station Number Table 7.2-2 Streamflow Data for the Gila Bend Basin 43,185 195 5,185 4 (1992) 0 (1962, 2002) Median 0 (1956) Minimum 330,347 385 327,935 Mean 5,088,672 (1993) 1,144 (1990) 5,675,984 (1993) Maximum Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) 43 4 80 Years of Record 121 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 G&F Woolsey Peak Gillespie Dam Gila Bend Landfill Sauceda Wash Sand Tank @ I-8 Sand Tank Wash Rainbow Wash Maricopa Mountains Bender Wash 5060 6905 6910 6920 6930 6940 6950 6955 6960 122 Notes: FCD = Flood Control District Station Name Station ID Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation/Stage Weather Station Precipitation Weather Station/Stage Station Type 1/12/1982 4/21/2005 11/6/2000 7/21/1983 6/28/2001 2/28/1990 4/7/1993 4/12/1994 6/25/2003 Install Date Responsibility Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Table 7.2-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Gila Bend Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Painted Rock Bureau of Reclamation 4,831,500 C Federal USE JURISDICTION Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2005 B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 2 Total maximum storage: 171 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 24 Notes: C = Flood control 1 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 123 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 124 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Gila Bend Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.2-5. The locations of perennial streams are shown on Figure 7.2-6. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • There are no perennial streams and one intermittent stream, the Gila River. There are no major or minor springs in the basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from zero to one, depending on the database reference. Table 7.2-5 Springs in the Gila Bend Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and USGS, 2006): 0-1 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 125 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 126 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Gila Bend Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.2-6. Figure 7.2-7 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.2-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.2-7. Figure 7.2-9 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.2. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.19. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.2-6 and Figure 7.2-7 • The major aquifer is basin fill. • Flow direction is from north to southwest in the center of the basin and from the west to east in the northern portion of the basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.2-6 and Figure 7.2-9 • As shown on Figure 7.2-9, well yields are generally greater than 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). • One source of well yield information, based on 242 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 2,700 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.2-6 • There are three estimates of natural recharge for this basin ranging from 10,000 acre-feet per year to 37,000 acre-feet per year. • The largest source of natural recharge in the basin occurs from Gila River flood events and infiltration of water impounded behind Painted Rock Dam (ADWR 1994). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.2-6 • There are three estimates of water in storage ranging from 17 million acre-feet to 61 million acre-feet, both to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.2-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 31 index wells in this basin, hydrographs for seven index wells are shown on Figure 7.2-8. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 639 feet south of Maricopa Road and the shallowest is 34 feet near the western basin boundary. Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 127 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-6 Groundwater Data for the Gila Bend Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,284 Name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Major Aquifer(s): Range 300-4,266 Median 2,221 (107 wells measured) Range 7-5,800 Median 2,700 (242 wells reported) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 300-3,000 ADWR (1990) Range 0-2,500 USGS (1994) Range 1,000-5,000 ADWR HMS 29 (1996) 26,000 ADWR (1996) 37,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 10,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) 27,600,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994) 17,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 61,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 31 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1993 (218 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 11/21/2007 128 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 129 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.2-8 Gila Bend Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 250 A WELL DEPTH: 600 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill C-02-04 26BDA Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 300 350 1975 0 B 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1500 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 basin fill C-03-05 02CBB 50 100 50 1975 C 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 300 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill C-04-04 09BAA1 100 150 200 1975 130 1985 YEAR 1995 2005 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.2-8 (cont’d) Gila Bend Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 0 D basin fill C-04-07 34CDC WELL DEPTH: 830 ft USE: UNUSED 50 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 100 1975 150 E 200 1975 125 F 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1217 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 basin fill C-05-04 31ADD 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1875 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 basin fill C-05-06 31CBB 175 225 275 275 1975 G 325 1975 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 632 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1985 2005 basin fill C-06-05 25BBB2 YEAR 1995 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 2005 131 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 132 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.7 Water Quality of the Gila Bend Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.2-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 7.2-7B. Figure 7.2-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.2-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mine Sites • Refer to Table 7.2-7A. • One hundred and twenty-two wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • Ninety-two percent of the wells measured equaled or exceeded the parameter for fluoride. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, nitrate, mercury, selenium and total dissolved solids. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 7.2-7B. • The water quality standard for organics was equaled or exceeded in three reaches of the Gila River totaling 41 miles. The standard for organics was also equaled or exceeded in 100 acres of the Painted Rock Reservoir. • None of the reaches or the lake are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, at this time. Effluent Dependent Reaches • See Figure 7.2-10 • There is one effluent dependent reach north of Gila Bend. This reach receives effluent from the Gila Bend Wastewater Treatment Plant. Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 133 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Gila Bend Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) 2 South 2 South 2 South 2 South 2 South 2 South 2 South 2 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 6 West 6 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 25 25 32 32 33 33 33 33 5 9 9 9 15 15 16 23 27 28 3 4 10 21 22 28 32 28 36 3 3 4 9 10 10 16 16 17 18 21 21 29 29 29 31 31 31 F F F F F F, NO3, TDS F F F F, NO3 F F F F F F F TDS NO3 NO3, TDS F F, TDS F F NO3 F F NO3 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Site Location 134 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Gila Bend Basin (cont'd.) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 4 West 4 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 3 West 3 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 31 31 18 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 24 36 3 11 11 16 31 31 34 26 35 35 36 36 36 18 19 20 20 20 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 As, F, Hg F TDS F F F F F F F F F F F F F TDS F, As F F, TDS F F F F F F As, F F F As, F F F F F As, F F F F F F F As, F As, F F Site Location Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 135 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Gila Bend Basin (cont'd.) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 5 6 8 25 4 4 6 10 11 33 2 2 11 11 11 11 12 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 F F, NO3, TDS As, F As, F F F F F, Se F As, F F F F As, F F F F As, F As As, F F F F F As, F As, F As, F As, F As F F F As, F Site Location B. Lakes and Streams Length of Area of Designated Use Impaired Stream Impaired Lake 3 Standard Reach (in miles) (in acres) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Gila River (Gillespie Dam to Rainbow Wash) 5 NA FC Organics b Stream Gila River (Rainbow Wash to Sand Tank) 17 NA FC Organics c Stream Gila River (Sand Tank to Painted Rock Reservoir) 19 NA FC Organics 136 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Gila Bend Basin (cont'd.) 1 B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name d Lake Painted Rock Reservoir Notes: Area of Length of Designated Use Impaired Stream Impaired Lake Standard3 (in acres) Reach (in miles) NA 100 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 FC Organics 1 Water quality samples collected between 1975 and 2001. As = Arsenic NO3 = Nitrate/ Nitrite F = Fluoride Hg = Mercury Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides Se = Selenium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 3 FC = Fish Consumption 2 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 137 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 138 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Gila Bend Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 7.2-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 7.2-9. Figure 7.2-11 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.2-8 and Figure 7.2-11. • Population in this basin decreased from 3,437 in 1980 to 2,791 in 2000. Projections suggest an increase through 2050. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation in the northern portion of the basin. • Agricultural groundwater demand increased 23% and surface water demand decreased 24% from 1991 to 2003. • There was no reported industrial groundwater demand prior to 2003. In 2003 the Gila River Power Plant and the Citrus Valley Dairy began operation, with a combined demand of 5,000 acre-feet. The Painted Rock Dairy began operation in 2004. Its demand is not shown on Table 7.2-8. • Municipal groundwater demand is small and increased 18% from 1991 to 2003. • As of 2003 there were 246 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 277 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 7.2-9. • There are four wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for three facilities and information on the volume of effluent generated was available for two facilities. These facilities serve almost 4,900 people, 3,400 of which are at the Lewis Prison, and generate almost 800 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Effluent is discharged to evaporation ponds and a watercourse and is not reused. Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 139 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-8. Cultural Water Demands in the Gila Bend Basin1 Year Recent (Census) Number of Registered Water Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) and Projected Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions (DES) Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation Data Source 1971 1972 237,000 78,000 1973 1974 1975 2 2 243 169 1976 1977 274,000 102,000 1978 1979 ADWR 1980 3,437 (1994) 1981 3,402 1982 3,367 29 28 245,000 117,000 1983 3,332 1984 3,297 1985 3,262 1986 3,227 1987 3,192 4 3 179,000 99,000 1988 3,157 1989 3,122 1990 3,087 1991 3,058 1992 3,028 7 3 800 NR 237,000 NR NR 71,500 1993 2,998 1994 2,969 1995 2,939 USGS 1996 2,910 (2005) 1997 2,880 ADWR 10 0 800 NR 244,000 NR NR 68,500 1998 2,850 (2005) 1999 2,821 2000 2,791 2001 2,812 0 950 NR NR 54,500 14 291,000 2002 2,833 5,0003 2003 2,854 2010 3,000 2020 3,387 2030 4,620 2040 6,593 2050 10,885 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 4 13 WELL TOTALS: 246 277 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Water use shown is for the Gila River Power Plant (4,900 acre-feet) and the Citrus Valley Dairy (100 acre-feet) that opened in 2003 4 Other water-supply wells are listed in the ADWR Well Registry for this basin, but they do not have completion dates. These wells are summed here. NR - Not reported 140 12/27/2007 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Prison Arizona Department of Corrections NA Lewis WWTP Panda Gila River Project Power plant 3,400 1,400 70 Population Served NA 403 392 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant Adv. Trt. I: Advanced Treatment Level I Gila Bend Gila Bend Gila Bend WWTP Airfield US Air Force Auxiliary Field City/Location Served Ownership Facility Name X Watercourse X X Evaporation Pond Irrigation Golf Course NA Wildlife Area Disposal Method Table 7.2-9 Effluent Generation in the Gila Bend Basin Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins NA Adv. Trt.I Current Treatment Level NA NA 600 Population Not Served 2004 2003 Year of Record 141 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 142 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Zuni Estates 4 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South Township 5 West 4 West 5 West 4 West Range Location 36 31 36 31 Section NA 24 35 30 No. of Lots 22-400094 22-400726 22-300552 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate ADWR Adequacy Determination A1, C A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 12/01/75 06/22/99 07/10/02 10/23/98 Date of Determination Town of Gila Bend Town of Gila Bend Town of Gila Bend Town of Gila Bend Water Provider at the Time of Application A. Physical/Continuous 3 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT NA = Data not currently available to ADWR D. Unable to locate records C. Water Quality B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. 2 In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. 1 Notes: Maricopa 3 Maricopa Maricopa Gila Bend Estates Maricopa Palo Verde Heights Unit I Current Place Unit 1 1 County 2 Subdivision Name Map Key Table 7.2-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Gila Bend Basin1 Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 7.2-10 • As of May 2005, four subdivisions have been reviewed for an adequacy determination. All subdivisions are in Maricopa County. • Of the 89 lots in three subdivisions for which lot information is available, 24 lots or 27% were determined to be adequate. • Reasons for a determination of inadequacy included water quality and insufficient data. Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.2-10. Figure 7.2-12 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. 7.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Gila Bend Basin 143 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 144 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Gila Bend Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005.* _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005.* _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006.* _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005.* _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit.* _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 145 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning.* _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover.* _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____ (ALRIS), 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____ (ALRIS), 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index.html.* _____ (ALRIS), 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html.* Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* Errol L. Montgomery & Associates, Inc., 2006, Hydrologic Study for Demonstration of Adequate Water Supply for the John’s Ranch Parcel Near Gila Bend, Maricopa County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. 146 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 F Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 2003: USGS Water-Data Report AZ-03-1.* Fluid Solutions, 2000, Hydrologic Study, Spring Mountain Ski Ranch, Township 2 South, Range 5 West, East Half Section 35. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M McCormack, H.F., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2002, Water resources data Arizona, water year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ-02-1.* N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snowcourse stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., and Smith, C.F., 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* T Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid. cfm* US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 147 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____ 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005.* Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179. *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Supplemental Reading Andersen, Mark, 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Anning, D.W., 2002, Estimation and analysis of the uncertainty in stream flow and change in reservoir-content data at selected stream flow-gaging stations in the Lower Colorado River network, 1995-99: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Gebler, J. B., 1998, Water quality of selected effluent dependent stream reaches in southern 148 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona as indicated by concentrations of periphytic chlorophyll a and aquatic invertebrate communities: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4199, 12 p. Huckleberry, G., 1996, Historical geomorphology of the Gila River: AZGS Open –File Report 96-14, 31 p. King, K. A., and Baker, D. L., 1995, Contaminants in fish and wildlife of the middle Gila River, Arizona: USFWS unnumbered report, 17 p. Rascona, S.J., 1996, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Gila Bend basin, Maricopa County, Arizona 1993: Arizona Department of Water Resources, Hydrologic Map Series Report #29. Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT 149 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Index to Section 7.0 Overview of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 1 Geography 3 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 7 14-15 Environmental Conditions National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves 27 Population 29, 31 Water Supply Surface Water Groundwater Effluent Contaminated Sites 39 39-40 41 44 Cultural Water Use Tribal Demand Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand Water Resource Issues Issue Surveys 150 46 47, 51 53, 55 61, 62, 63 67-69 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin DRAFT Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 151 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.1 Geography of the Harquahala Basin The Harquahala Basin, located in the northeastern part of the planning area, is 766 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal places are shown on Figure 7.3-1. The basin is characterized by a plain bordered by mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub and a small amount of southwestern interior chaparral on the northern basin boundary. (See Figure 7.0-7) • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.3-1 are: o Basin place of Centennial o Centennial Wash running through the center of the basin o The Harquahala Plain in the center of the basin bordered by the Big Horn Mountains in the east, the Little Harquahala Mountains in the north and the Eagletail Mountains in the west o The highest point in the basin, Big Horn Peak, at 3,480 feet in the Big Horn Mountains Not well shown on Figure 7.3-1 is the lowest point in the basin at 1,000 feet where Centennial Wash exits the basin in T4N R12W. 152 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 153 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.2 Land Ownership in the Harquahala Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Harquahala Basin is shown in Figure 7.3-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large amount of U.S. Bureau of Land Management Land. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 62.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Lower Sonoran Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • This basin contains 52,800 acres of wilderness. This includes 24,000 acres of the 100,000 acre Eagletail Mountains Wilderness, 18,000 acres of the 21,000 acre Big Horn Mountains Wilderness, 5,500 acres of the 31,000 acre Hummingbird Springs Wilderness and 5,300 acres of the 23,000 acre Harquahala Mountains Wilderness. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Land uses include resource conservation, recreation and grazing. Private • 25.1% of the land is private. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and grazing. State Trust Land • 12.6% of the land is held in trust for the public schools, state charitable penal reform and county bonds under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing. Other • 0.1% of the land is federally owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) • USBOR lands are located in the western portion of the basin in the vicinity of Interstate 10 where they surround the Central Arizona Project aqueduct. 154 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 155 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.3 Climate of the Harquahala Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and AZMET stations are complied in Table 7.3-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.3-3. Figure 7.3-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Harquahala Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.3-1A • Temperatures at the two NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations in the basin range from an average high of 91.0°F at Salome 17 SE to an average low of 48.0°F at Harquahala Plains. • Average seasonal rainfall follows a bi-modal pattern with approximately one-third of the average seasonal rainfall occurring in the winter (January-March) season and one-third in the summer (July-September) season. The highest average annual rainfall in the basin is 6.36 inches at the Salome 17 SE station. AZMET • Refer to Table 7.3-1C • There is one AZMET station in the basin, Harquahala. This station is at 1,150 feet and has an annual reference evaportranspiration rate of 82.13 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.3-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 18 inches in the Harquahala Mountains at the northern tip of the basin and as low as four inches in the southern and western portions of the basin. 156 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-1 Climate Data for the Harquahala Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Harquahala Plains 1220 Salome 17 SE 1600 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 1952 - 19791 89.5/Jul 48.0/Jan 2.03 0.31 2.10 1.71 6.14 1987 - 19981 91.0/Jul 49.1/Dec 2.49 0.43 2.06 1.38 6.36 Source: WRCC, 2003 Notes: 1 Average temperature data for period of record shown; precipitation data from 1971-2000 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Record Used for Averages Elevation (in feet) Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) None Source: WRCC, 2003 C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) Harquahala 1,150 1996 - 2003 82.13 (6) Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 157 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 158 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Harquahala Basin Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.3-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.3-4. The location of flood ALERT equipment and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 7.3-4. There are no USGS streamflow gages or runoff contour data available for this basin. A description of stream data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of reservoir data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.11. A description of stockpond data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.15. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 7.3-3. • Most of the 10 ALERT gages in Harquahala Basin are located along Centennial Wash and its tributaries. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.3-4. • The basin contains one large reservoir, Harquahala FRS, with a maximum storage of 8,000 acre-feet. This reservoir is used for flood control. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in one small reservoir in the basin. • There are 42 registered stockponds in this basin. Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 159 USGS Station Name Drainage Area (in mi2) Mean Basin Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Station Name Eagle Eye Rd. @ CAP Buckeye @ 547th Ave. Baseline @ 547th Ave. Saddleback FRS Centennial Levee Harquahala FRS Tiger Wash Fan Narrows Damsite Tiger Wash Harquahala Mtn. Repeater Station ID 5065 5080 5085 5110 5120 5125 5140 5150 5160 5185 Notes: FCD = Flood Control District FRS = Flood Retention Structure 160 None Winter Spring Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Fall Minimum Repeater/Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Weather Station Precipitation/Stage Precipitation/Stage Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Station Type 2/11/1994 9/15/1999 9/1/1994 9/21/1994 9/15/1993 3/7/1994 12/16/1988 5/24/2000 6/13/2000 6/17/2003 Install Date Mean Maximum Years of Record Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Responsibility Median Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Table 7.3-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Harquahala Basin Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Station Number Table 7.3-2 Streamflow Data for the Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Harquahala Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Harquahala FRS Maricopa County FCD 8,000 C State USE JURISDICTION B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 1 Total surface area: 17 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 42 Notes: FCD = Flood Control District FRS = Flood Retention Structure 1 C = Flood Control Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 161 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 162 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Harquahala Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.3-5. There are no perennial or intermittent streams and no major or minor springs in the Harquahala Basin. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from zero to one, depending on the database reference. Table 7.3-5 Springs in the Harquahala Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and USGS, 2006): 0-1 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 163 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Harquahala Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.3-6. Figure 7.3-5 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.3-6 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.3-5. Figure 7.3-7 shows well yields in six yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.2. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.19. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.3-6 and Figure 7.3-5. • The major aquifer in this basin is basin fill. • Flow direction is from the basin edges to a cone of depression in the central portion of the basin. • As shown on Figure 7.3-6, the water level in the area of the cone of depression has risen by at least one foot and as much as 30 + feet between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004 due to use of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water in place of groundwater and CAP recharge at the Vidler Water Recharge Facility west of Centennial. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.3-6 and Figure 7.3-7 • As shown on Figure 7.3-7, well yields are generally between 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 157 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 1,620 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.3-6 • There are three estimates of natural recharge ranging from less than 1,000 acre-feet per year to less than 1,200 acre-feet per year. • The largest source of natural recharge is runoff infiltration through the Centennial Wash alluvium (ADWR 1994). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.3-6 • There are three estimates of water in storage ranging from 13 million acre-feet to 27 million acre-feet, both to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.3-5. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 34 index wells in this basin, hydrographs for 11 index wells are shown on Figure 7.3-6. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 561 feet in the southwestern portion of the basin and the shallowest is 25 feet in T1N R8W. 164 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-6 Groundwater Data for the Harquahala Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 766 Name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Major Aquifer(s): Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Range 207-3,007 Median 1,613.5 (84 wells measured) Range 7-3,500 Median 1,620 (157 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 300-3,000 ADWR (1990 and 1994) Range 0-2,500 USGS (1994) <1,2001 Anderson and Freethey (1995) 1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1 Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Measured by ADWR and/or USGS <1,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) 15,500,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994) 2 13,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 27,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 34 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (188 wells measured) 1 Includes Tiger Wash Basin 2 Predevelopment Estimate 11/26/2007 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 165 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 166 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.3-6 Harquahala Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 300 A WELL DEPTH: 730 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-04-12 05ADA Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 350 400 450 500 275 325 500 550 1975 B 1975 C 1975 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 420 ft USE: STOCK 2005 basin fill B-03-13 28ADC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 980 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-03-11 01BCB 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 167 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.3-6 (cont’d) Harquahala Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 575 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 625 325 375 450 D WELL DEPTH: 400 FT USE: DOMESTIC 1975 E 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 765 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 F basin fill B-03-09 08DDD2 2005 basin fill B-02-10 17DCA 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-02-09 03BBB 500 550 600 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 168 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.3-6 (cont’d) Harquahala Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 400 G WELL DEPTH: 1560 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-02-08 17CAA Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 450 500 550 1975 425 H 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 561 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-01-09 29BCC 475 525 575 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 169 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.3-6 (cont’d) Harquahala Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 550 I WELL DEPTH: 893 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill C-01-09 18ACB Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 600 650 700 300 1975 J 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill C-01-08 06DCC 350 400 450 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 170 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 7.3-6 (cont’d) Harquahala Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 125 K WELL DEPTH: 535 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill C-01-08 34BCD 175 225 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 171 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 172 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.7 Water Quality of the Harquahala Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.3-7A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.3-8 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.3-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mine Sites • Refer to Table 7.3-7A. • Eighty-two wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • Eighty-four percent of the wells measured equaled or exceeded the parameter for fluoride. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, lead, chromium, total dissolved solids and nitrates. Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 173 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Harquahala Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water 2 Standard (DWS) 4 North 4 North 4 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 9 West 12 West 12 West 9 West 10 West 11 West 11 West 12 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 11 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 30 9 14 8 31 8 13 19 17 19 28 30 3 11 11 13 14 16 24 26 26 26 35 17 26 26 2 6 7 19 19 4 5 6 11 12 12 13 16 17 17 17 17 18 20 21 21 22 22 23 24 F F NO3 F F F, Hg F F F As F As, NO3 F As NO3 F As, F, NO3, TDS F As F As F, TDS F F F F F F, NO3 F F, NO3, TDS As, F, NO3 F NO3 F F F, NO3 F F F TDS F F F, Pb F F, NO3 F F F F F, NO3 F 174 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Harquahala Basin (cont'd.) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water 2 Standard (DWS) 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 9 West 9 West 9 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 7 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 26 31 36 1 1 12 19 4 6 6 6 8 8 9 14 14 20 22 27 27 27 1 2 2 3 5 7 10 11 11 11 F As, F F F F F F F As, Pb As, F F Cr, F F As, F, Pb F As F F F F F F F NO3 Pb, NO3 F F F F F F B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Area of Impaired Stream Impaired Lake Reach (in miles) (in acres) Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Water quality samples collected between 1978 and 1991. As = Arsenic Cr = Chromium NO3 = Nitrate/ Nitrite F = Fluoride Pb = Lead TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 175 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 176 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Harquahala Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 7.3-8. Figure 7.3-9 shows the location of demand centers. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.3-8 and Figure 7.3-9. • Population in this basin increased from 359 in 1980 to 609 in 2000 and projections suggest an increase through 2050. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation in the southern and northwestern portions of the basin. • Groundwater use for agriculture increased more than 200% from 1991 to 2003, however, in general agricultural groundwater use declined 73% from 1971 to 2003. The entire Harquahala Basin is within an Irrigation Non-Expansion Area (INA). The Harquahala INA was created in 1981; no new agricultural lands can be irrigated with groundwater in an INA. • Surface water use for irrigation began in 1986 with deliveries of Central Arizona Project water to the basin. Agricultural surface water demand increased 13% from 1986 to 2003. • There was no reported industrial groundwater demand prior to 2001-2003. The Harquahala Generating Project began operating in 2001. This plant used an average of 1,900 acre-feet per year from 2001 to 2003. • Municipal groundwater demand is small and increased 5% from 1991 to 2003. • As of 2003 there were 187 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 156 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 177 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Harquahala Basin1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Recent (Census) and Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Projected (DES) Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Population 1112 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial 3 Surface-Water Diversions Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation 117,000 NR 111,000 NR Data Source 1522 359 405 451 13 3 79,000 498 544 590 636 682 10 0 6,000 729 775 821 800 779 5 0 900 NR 9,500 757 736 715 694 673 19 0 950 NR 23,500 651 630 609 630 29 1 950 1,900 31,000 651 673 821 1,114 1,511 2,050 2,780 WELL TOTALS: 187 156 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Industrial demand 1971-1990 includes a small amount of well pumpage in the Tiger Wash Basin. NR - Not reported 178 12/10/2007 ADWR (1994) USGS (2005) NR 79,000 NR NR 47,500 NR NR 85,000 NR NR 90,000 USGS (2005) Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Ownership Population Served Watercourse Evaporation Irrigation Pond Golf Course Wildlife Area Disposal Method No Waste Water Treatment Facilities Identified by ADWR in this Basin Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Facility Name City/Location Served Table 7.3-9 Effluent Generation in the Harquahala Basin Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record 179 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 180 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Maricopa Harquahala Ranchitos Units 1 & 2 Rose View Estates 2 3 1 North 2 North 1 North Township 8 West 8 West 9 West Range Location 36 36 31 Section NA 35 30 No. of Lots 22-300114 22-300288 ADWR File 2 No. Adequate Adequate Inadequate ADWR Adequacy Determination A2 Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination 04/06/95 02/26/96 05/12/97 Date of Determination Water Utility of Greater Tonopah, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision NA Water Provider at the Time of Application Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination wa In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Data not currently available to ADWR Maricopa Maricopa Big Horn Farms 1 County Subdivision Name Map Key Table 7.3-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Harquahala Basin1 Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 7.3-10 • As of May 2005, three subdivisions have been reviewed for an adequacy determination. All subdivisions are in Maricopa County. • Of the 65 lots in two subdivisions for which lot information is available, 35 lots or 54% were determined to be adequate. • One subdivision received a determination of inadequacy because of an insufficient supply. Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.3-10. Figure 7.3-10 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. 7.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Harquahala Basin 181 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 182 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Harquahala Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit.* _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 183 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover.* _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html.* Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* F Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 2003: USGS Water-Data Report AZ-03-1.* Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial 184 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664.* H HydroSystems, Inc., 1997, Physical Availability Demonstration For MBT Ranch Properties In Support Of The Transportation Of Groundwater From The Harquahala Irrigation NonExpansion Area. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* _____, 1998, Additional Regional Groundwater Level Decline Analysis Addendum To: Physical Availability Demonstration For MBT Ranch Properties In Support Of The Transportation Of Groundwater From The Harquahala Irrigation Non-Expansion Area. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* _____, 1998, Physical Availability Demonstration For Harquahala Valley Farms In Support Of The Transportation Of Groundwater From The Harquahala Irrigation Non-Expansion Area, Maricopa County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M McCormack, H.F., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2002, Water resources data Arizona, water year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ-02-1.* Montgomery Watson, 1995, Water Supply Adequacy Report for the Proposed Harquahala Ranchitos Units 1 and 2. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* _____, 1995, Water Supply Adequacy Report for the Proposed Rose View Estates. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snowcourse stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., and Smith, C.F., 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* T Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 185 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid. cfm* US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____ 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005.* Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http:// www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Supplemental Reading 186 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Andersen, Mark, 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Anning, D.W., 2002, Estimation and analysis of the uncertainty in stream flow and change in reservoir-content data at selected stream flow-gaging stations in the Lower Colorado River network, 1995-99: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Headly, J.D., 1990, Groundwater conditions in the Harquahala Irrigation Non-Expansion area and Tiger Wash Basin, Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series No. 17 Richard, S.M., 1999, Geology of the Socorro Mine –White Marble Mine area, western Harquahala Mountains, west central Arizona: AZGS Open-File Report 99-9, 35 p. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 87 p. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for La Paz County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT 187 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Index to Section 7.0 Overview of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 1 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 7, 8 12,13 Environmental Conditions Vegetation 19 Water Supply CAP Groundwater Effluent Contaminated Sites 31 38 40 41 44 Cultural Water Use Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 53, 55 62 Water Resource Issues Groundwater Transportation Issue Surveys 66 67-69 188 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin DRAFT Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 189 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.1 Geography of the Lower Gila Basin The Lower Gila Basin, located in the center of the planning area is 7,309 square miles in area, the largest basin in the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.4-1. The basin is characterized by plains and valleys surrounded by low elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub. (See Figure 7.0-7) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.4-1 are: o Principal basin communities of Ajo, Dateland, Tacna and Wellton o Other basin communities of Dome, Fishers Landing, Hyder, Sentinel and Why o The Colorado River on the western basin boundary in the vicinity of Fishers Landing o The Gila River running east to west through the center of the basin o Numerous valleys and plains including Mohawk, San Cristobal, Growler and Childs Valleys in the southern portion of the basin and Castle Dome and Palomas Plains and King and Hyder Valleys in the northern portion of the basin o Mountain ranges including the Cabeza Prieta, Mohawk, Granite and Growler Mountains in the southern portion of the basin and the Castle Dome, Tank, Kofa and Gila Bend Mountains in the northern portion of the basin o The lowest point in the basin at 160 feet west of Dome where the Gila River exits the basin o The highest point in the basin, Castle Dome Peak, at 3,788 feet in the Castle Dome Mountains west of Fishers Landing 190 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 191 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.2 Land Ownership in the Lower Gila Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Lower Gila Basin is shown in Figure 7.4-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large areas of military and national wildlife refuge lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Military • 38.8% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military. • U.S. Military lands in the basin include the Yuma Proving Ground and the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range. • Primary land use is military activity. National Wildlife Refuge • 23.4% of the land is federally owned and managed as National Wildlife Refuges (NWR). • Most of two National Wildlife Refuges are located in this basin, the 665,000 acre Kofa NWR and the 857,000 acre Cabeza Prieta NWR. Part of the Imperial NWR is located along the California State boundary. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Land uses include resource conservation, wildlife protection and recreation. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 20.9% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Lower Sonoran and Yuma Field Offices of the Bureau of Land Management. • This basin contains 138,700 acres of wilderness. Including 64,000 acres of the 100,000 acre Eagletail Mountains Wilderness, the 38,000 acre Muggins Mountains Wilderness, 15,000 acres of the 64,000 acre Woolsey Peak Wilderness and 12,000 acres of the 13,000 acre Signal Mountain Wilderness. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Land uses include grazing, resource conservation and recreation. Private • 5.8% of the land is private. • Land uses include agriculture, domestic and commercial. State Trust Land • 4.5% of the land is held in trust for the public schools and five other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • Land uses include agriculture and grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 3.9% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. • Land uses include resource conservation and recreation. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 192 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Indian Reservation • 2.3% of the land is under tribal ownership as the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. • Primary land use is grazing. Other • 0.4% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR). • This land contains pump stations for the canals that are operated by the USBOR. 193 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower GIla Basin DRAFT 194 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.3 Climate of the Lower Gila Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and AZMET stations are complied in Table 7.4-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.4-3. Figure 7.4-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Lower Gila Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.4-1A • Temperatures at the eight NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations in the basin range from an average high of 94.6°F at Mohawk to an average low of 51.1°F at Wellton. • Highest average seasonal rainfall at all stations occurs in the summer season (JulySeptember) when approximately 37% of the annual average precipitation occurs. Many stations also receive a significant portion of precipitation in the winter (January-March) and fall (October-December) seasons. The highest average annual rainfall in the basin is 7.74 inches at the Ajo station. AZMET • Refer to Table 7.4-1C • There are two AZMET stations in the basin. The stations are at 299 feet and 535 feet and have an average annual reference evapotranspiration of 78.42 inches and 88.06 inches respectively. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.4-3 • Additional precipitation data show average annual rainfall as high as 16 inches in the Gunsight Hills south of Why and as low as four inches or less along the Colorado River in the western portion of the basin. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 195 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-1 Climate Data for the Lower Gila Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Ajo 1,800 Dateland Whitewing R Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 1971 - 2000 89.9/Jul 54.5/Jan 2.10 0.43 3.20 2.01 7.74 550 1971 - 2000 89.5/Jul 53.6/Dec 1.58 0.18 1.59 1.25 4.60 Kofa Mine 1,780 1971 - 2000 91.1/Jul 55.9/Dec, Jan 2.32 0.39 2.69 1.59 6.99 Mohawk 540 1900-1951 94.6/Jul 54.4/Jan 1.16 0.25 1.69 1.15 4.23 Sentinel 690 1899-1960 92.3/Jul 51.7/Dec 1.35 0.37 1.90 1.01 4.63 Tacna 3 NE 320 1971 - 2000 92.1/Jul 51.6/Dec 1.39 0.31 1.60 1.05 4.35 Wellton 260 1922-19801 91.0/Jul 51.1/Jan 1.46 0.30 1.57 1.13 4.44 Yuma Proving Ground 320 1971 - 2000 93.1/Jul 55.3/Dec 1.23 0.26 1.33 0.98 3.80 Source: WRCC, 2003 Notes: Average temperature data from period of record shown; average precipitation data from 1971 - 2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) Dateland 535 1990 - 1996 (discontinued) 88.06 (6) Roll 299 1997 - current 78.42 (6) Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 196 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 197 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Lower Gila Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 7.4-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.4-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.4-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 7.4-4. A description of stream data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of reservoir data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.11. A description of stockpond data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.15. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 7.4-2. • Data from four stations located at three watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 7.4-4. • Average seasonal flow varies at the four stations. At one station, Colorado River below Imperial Dam, the average seasonal flow is similar in all seasons due to releases from Imperial Dam. The Rio Comez near Ajo station, with a small, local drainage area, receives 79% of its average seasonal flow in the summer season (July-September). The Gila River stations report highest average seasonal flow the spring (April-June) season. • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is 10 million acre-feet in 1984 at the Colorado River below Imperial Dam station with a contributing drainage area of 188,500 square miles. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 7.4-3. • Most of the nine ALERT gages in Lower Gila Basin are located along tributaries to the Gila River. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.4-4. • The basin contains five large reservoirs. The largest, Imperial, has a maximum surface area of 1,402 acres. • Three reservoirs are used for recreation and/or as fish and wildlife ponds. Two reservoirs are dry lakes. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in six small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 65 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 7.4-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.2 inches per year or 10.66 acre-feet per square mile, in the southeastern portion of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or five acre-feet per square mile, in the remainder of the basin. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 198 188,500 USGS Station Name Colorado River below 1 Imperial Dam Rio Cornez near Ajo Gila River near Dateland Gila River near Mohawk 9429500 9520170 9520280 9520360 NA NA 1,950 162 Mean Basin Elevation (in feet) 24 8 2 36 1/1967 - 9/1978 (discontinued) 10/1993 - current (real time) 1966-/1993 (discontinued) Winter 1961 - current (real time) Period of Record 38 46 1 21 Spring 15 18 79 31 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 12 35 11 24 Fall 199 Notes: NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Annual Flow/Year statistics were only completed for those gages that had at least 3 year of 12 month records. Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. 55,430 55,000 243 Drainage Area (in mi2) Station Number 4 413 0 (2000, 2001, 2002) 0 (19751976, 19871991) 2,440 350,416 Median 317,233 69,331 3,085 2,029,309 (1980) 610,467 (1995) 8,543 (1976) 10,049,120 (1984) Maximum 19 9 11 31 Years of Record Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 1,292,340 Mean Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) (1969) 233,128 (1971) Minimum 615 Table 7.4-2 Streamflow Data for the Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Mt. Oatman Columbus Wash Copper Wash 4th of July Wash Gila Bend Mountains Kofa Dateland Wellton Weather Station Cabeza Prieta aka Ajo 5000 5010 5030 5040 5050 7202 7204 7210 7220 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Station Type Weather Station Weather Station Precipitation Precipitation Weather Station Precipitation/Stage Precipitation/Stage Precipitation/Stage Repeater/Precipitation Notes: ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources FCD = Flood Control District NA = Information is not available at this time Station Name Station ID 7/31/2004 4/29/2004 12/5/2001 12/6/2001 6/1/1988 3/14/2002 2/20/2001 9/21/1999 4/1/1981 Install Date Responsibility ADWR ADWR ADWR ADWR Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa Country FCD Table 7.4-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Lower Gila Basin 200 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Lower Gila Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Imperial Bureau of Reclamation 160,0002 S,I Federal Source: BOR 2007 B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)3 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE JURISDICTION 2 Martinez Bureau of Reclamation 640 R,F Federal 3 Painted Rock Borrow Pit Bureau of Reclamation 350 F Federal 4 Unnamed 4 USAF 100 NA Federal 5 Unnamed 4 USAF 69 NA Federal 1 C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)3 Total number: 6 Total surface area: 70 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 65 Notes: I = Irrigation, S = Water Supply, R = Recreation, F = fish & wildlife pond 2 Much of the storage is in CA. 3 Capacity data is not available to ADWR 4 Dry lake USAF = United States Air Force 1 201 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower GIla Basin DRAFT 202 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Lower Gila Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.4-5. The locations of perennial streams are shown on Figure 7.4-5. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • There is one intermittent stream, the Gila River and one perennial stream, Colorado River. • There are no major or minor springs in the basin. • The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from six to eight, depending on the database reference. Table 7.4-5 Springs in the Lower Gila Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and USGS, 2006): 6-8 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 203 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 204 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 205 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Lower Gila Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.4-6. Figure 7.4-6 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.4-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.4-6. Figure 7.4-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.2. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.19. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.4-6 and Figure 7.4-6 • The major aquifers are recent stream alluvium and basin fill. • Predevelopment flow direction was from the north and southeast edges of the basin to the Gila River and downstream to the southwest. Extensive agricultural development has created a series of cones of depression including the Hyder Valley cone that pulls water from the Hyder area to the north and a cone east of Dateland. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.4-6 and Figure 7.4-8 • As shown on Figure 7.4-8, well yields are generally greater than 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm). • One source of well yield information, based on 597 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 1,600 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.4-6 • There are two estimates of natural recharge ranging from greater than 9,000 acre-feet per year to 88,000 acre-feet per year. • The largest source of natural recharge is runoff in washes and the Gila River floodplain. (ADWR 1994) • In the western portion of the basin, “artificial” recharge from infiltration of irrigation water requires pumping of excess groundwater into drainage canals for removal from the basin. (ADWR 1994) Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.4-6 • There are three estimates of water in storage ranging from 100 million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet to 246 million acre-feet to an unknown depth. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.4-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 33 index wells in this basin; hydrographs for 10 index wells and one other well are shown on Figure 7.4-7. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 809 feet in the vicinity of Why and the shallowest is five feet northeast of Wellton. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 206 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-6 Groundwater Data for the Lower Gila Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 7,309 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Range 184-5,095 Median 1,823.5 (56 wells measured) Range 10-6,000 Median 1,600 (597 wells reported) Well Yields, in gal/min: Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 100-2,500 ADWR (1990 and 1994) Range 0-2,500 USGS (1994) 88,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) >9,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) 143,900,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990) 100,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 246,000,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Current Number of Index Wells: 33 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1992 (589 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 11/26/2007 207 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower GIla Basin DRAFT 208 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.4-7 Lower Gila Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 200 DEPTH: 655 ft USE: UNUSED C-03-08 15CCB UNSURV 250 1975 350 B 400 1975 600 650 C 1975 1985 1995 DEPTH: 508 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 C-03-11 31DBB 1985 1995 DEPTH: 901 ft USE: INDUSTRIAL 2005 C-05-19 19BCB UNSURV 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 209 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.4-7 (cont’d) Lower Gila Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 D DEPTH: 111 ft USE: UNUSED 550 0 1975 200 E C-06-12 19BBA 1985 1995 DEPTH: 678 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 C-07-11 27DDD 250 300 1975 0 550 0 F 1985 1995 DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 1975 2005 C-07-15 16AAA 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 210 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.4-7 (cont’d) Lower Gila Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 50 50 1975 0 50 50 650 700 800 G H 1975 I 1975 J 850 1975 DEPTH: 282.6 ft USE: MONITOR C-08-13 28ABD 1985 1995 DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 2005 C-08-17 20DCC 1985 1995 DEPTH: 1200 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 C-11-06 24BDA1 1985 1995 DEPTH: 1060 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 C-13-05 25CBD1 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 211 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 212 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 213 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.7 Water Quality of the Lower Gila Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.4-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 7.4-7B. Figure 7.4-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.4-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mine Sites • Refer to Table 7.4-7A. • Two hundred and forty-six wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • Sixty-four percent of the wells equaled or exceeded the parameter for fluoride. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, cadmium, lead, nitrate, selenium and total dissolved solids. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 7.4-7B. • The water quality standard for boron and selenium was equaled or exceeded in one 28 mile reach of the Gila River, a portion of this reach is also in the Yuma Basin. The standard for organics and dissolved oxygen was equaled or exceeded at Painted Rock Borrow Pit Lake. • Neither the reach of the Gila River nor the lake are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, at this time. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 214 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower Gila Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Map Location2 Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 M M A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A M A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)3 1 South 2 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 15 West 17 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 19 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 18 1 16 33 33 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 9 2 5 5 6 7 8 17 18 19 21 1 1 1 2 2 8 12 21 21 21 29 33 35 21 3 3 6 6 12 12 12 13 3 3 16 16 20 28 32 F NO3 NO3 As, F F F F F F F F F As, F As, F F F F F F F F F As, F F F F F As, F As F NO3 As, F, NO3 F As, F F F NO3 As F F F F As, F F F F F F As, NO3, TDS F As, F F 215 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower Gila Basin (cont'd.) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Map Location2 Site Type 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A M M M A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A M M M M M M M M A M M M Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)3 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 10 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 19 West 19 West 21 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 10 West 10 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 13 West 14 West 15 West 18 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 36 2 15 15 4 4 4 4 5 9 9 16 16 22 36 36 36 5 19 19 17 5 32 35 35 8 10 17 18 18 19 27 30 35 35 35 35 35 3 22 15 32 21 21 32 10 23 34 7 22 22 36 F F F As, NO3 F F F F F F F F As, NO3 As F F F F F As, F F F As, F Pb F F F, TDS F F F NO3, TDS F F F F F F F As As F F F F F F F F F F F F Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 216 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower Gila Basin (cont'd.) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Map Location2 Site Type 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M A A A A A M M M M M A M M M M M M M B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)3 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 14 West 14 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 17 West 17 West 19 West 19 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 28 28 32 36 36 36 36 36 7 8 13 13 13 14 17 21 23 25 13 21 24 24 24 24 24 24 13 14 20 20 22 22 25 26 29 30 25 26 31 33 34 34 35 14 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F As, F As, F As, F F As, F F F F F F F F F TDS As, F As, F F F F TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS As, F, TDS TDS TDS F, TDS TDS F TDS TDS F, NO3, TDS As, NO3, TDS Pb 217 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower Gila Basin (cont'd.) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Map Location2 Site Type 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 M M M M M M M B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B M Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)3 7 South 7 South 7 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 21 West 21 West 21 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 14 West 14 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 20 West 10 10 11 6 20 28 34 16 16 2 4 5 7 9 9 11 11 1 3 3 3 9 9 10 10 13 14 17 18 18 18 25 25 14 14 20 21 21 22 25 26 27 29 29 31 34 36 25 31 36 36 9 F As F Pb, TDS NO3, TDS NO3, TDS TDS F F As TDS As, TDS NO3 TDS TDS F, NO3 TDS TDS TDS As, NO3 As, F NO3, TDS As, TDS TDS TDS TDS As, F TDS TDS TDS TDS As As F, TDS F, TDS As, TDS F, TDS TDS TDS As TDS TDS F As, TDS TDS As NO3 TDS TDS TDS TDS As, TDS Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 218 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower Gila Basin (cont'd.) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Map Location2 Site Type 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 M M M M M M M M M M M M B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B M M M M M M M M M Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)3 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 10 South 10 South 11 South 11 South 12 South 12 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20.5 West 21 West 21 West 6 West 7 West 11.5 West 12 West 12 West 17 West 17 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 6 West 8 West 6 West 6 West 8 West 8 West 3 West 5 West 5 West 9 9 15 25 6 1 1 23 29 36 16 31 4 9 6 10 11 19 19 20 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 6 13 24 30 22 24 24 1 17 32 25 25 NO3, TDS TDS As, TDS As, TDS TDS TDS As F As F NO3, TDS As, F TDS F F F, NO3, TDS F F, TDS F, TDS F As, TDS F As TDS As, F As, TDS TDS F, TDS As, F TDS F F As, F As, F NO3 Nos, TDS As As, Cd As, Cd 219 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower Gila Basin (cont'd.) 1 B. Lakes and Streams Length of Area of Impaired Designated Use Impaired Stream Lake (in acres) Standard4 Reach (in miles) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard3 Map Key Map Location2 Site Type Site Name a M, B Stream Gila River (Coyote Wash to Fortuna Wash) 28 NA A&W B, Se b A Lake Painted Rock Borrow Pit Lake NA 186 A&W, FC Dissolved Oxygen, Organics Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1975 and 2004. M = main map, A = inset A, B = inset B 3 As = Arsenic Bo = Boron Cd = Cadmium F = Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate/ Nitrite Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Se = Selenium 4 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FC = Fish Consumption 2 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 220 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 221 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower GIla Basin DRAFT 222 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Lower Gila Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 7.4-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 7.4-9. Figure 7.4-10 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.4-8 and Figure 7.4-10. • Population in this basin increased from 9,873 in 1980 to 11,303 in 2000 and projections suggest an increase of over 9,000 residents by 2050. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation primarily near the Gila River. • Agricultural water demand for groundwater and surface water increased approximately 10% between 1991 and 2003. • Industrial groundwater demand is relatively small but increased 5% from 1991 to 2003. Industrial uses in the basin include multiple dairies and a large feedlot. • Municipal groundwater demand is relatively small and increased 16% from 1991 to 2003. Municipal surface water use is also minimal but increased 50% from 1991 to 2003. • As of 2003 there were 1,674 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 593 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 7.4-9. • There are seven wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on disposal method was available for five facilities. All five facilities discharge to evaporation ponds and one facility also discharges for irrigation. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 223 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Lower Gila Basin 1 Year Recent (Census) and Projected (DES) Population Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q < 35 gpm Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet)3 Well Pumpage4 Surface-Water Diversions Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation Data Source 1971 1972 360,000 1973 1,251,0005 1974 1975 5392 4372 1976 1977 404,000 1978 1,102,0005 1979 ADWR 1980 9,873 (1994) 1981 9,813 1982 9,752 941 74 348,000 1983 9,692 1,130,0005 1984 9,632 1985 9,571 1986 9,511 1987 9,451 48 42 402,000 1988 9,390 1,229,0005 1989 9,330 1990 9,270 1991 9,473 1992 9,676 40 23 1,800 3,600 254,000 400 NR 365,000 1993 9,880 1994 10,083 USGS 1995 10,286 (2005) 1996 10,490 ADWR 1997 10,693 (2005) 56 10 1,900 3,700 261,000 400 NR 391,000 1998 10,896 ADEQ 1999 11,100 (2005) 2000 11,303 2001 11,407 34 3 2,100 3,800 282,000 600 NR 399,000 2002 11,511 2003 11,615 2010 12,343 2020 14,046 2030 16,055 2040 18,254 2050 20,719 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 6 16 4 WELL TOTALS: 1,674 593 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Includes pumpage and diversion of Colorado River Contract Water. 4 Well pumpage for irrigation includes drainage wells. 5 Includes surface-water diversions in Parker and Yuma basins. 6 Other water-supply wells are listed in the ADWR Well Registry for this basin, but they do not have completion dates. These wells are summed here. NR - Not reported 224 11/26/2007 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Ajo ID NA US Army US Army US Army US Army US Army Ajo WWTF Links @ Coyote Wash WWTP Laguna Airfield Kofa Firing Range US Army Garrison- Main WWTF US Army Garrison-Main Adminisitration Area WWTF US Army Garrison-Material Test Area WWTP Army Base Army Base Army Base Army Base Airfield Wellton Ajo City/Location Served 1,000 NA NA 1,089 Population Served Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant ID: Improvement District Ownership Facility Name NA 56 NA 50 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Water course X X X X X X NA NA Evaportion Golf Wildlife Irrigation Pond Course Area Disposal Method Table 7.4-9 Effluent Generation in the Lower Gila Basin Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins 2003 NA NA NA NA NA Year of Record Current Population Treatment Level Not Served 225 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 226 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 227 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Lower Gila Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.4-10. Figure 7.4-11 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 7.4-10 • A total of 26 water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through May 2005. • Six determinations of inadequacy have been made; the most common reason for an inadequacy determination was water quality. • The number of lots receiving a water adequacy determination, by county, are: Number of Subdivision Lots Number of Lots Determined to be Adequate Percent Adequate Pima County 565 565 100% Yuma County 2,079 1,748 84% County Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 228 Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Butterfield Bluff Butterfield Bluff # 4 Caballo Farms Cameron Place Addition Camino Viejo Citrus Park Copper Ridge Unit A Coyote Wash Condominiums Crystal Sands Erickson Grande Vista Hankins Subdivision Jojoba Farms # 1 Links at Coyote Wash Links at Coyote Wash Unit 2 Morisse New Cornelia Addition 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Yuma Yuma Yuma Rio Lindo Shores Rio Salado Ranches 1&2 20 21 22 229 Yuma New Tacna Townsite Orange Grove Ranch Estates 19 Pima Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Pima Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Arletta Estates 1 County Subdivision Name Map Key 6 South 11 South 9 South 8 South 12 South 3 South 10 South 9 South 7 South 9 South 8 South 9 South 7 South 9 South 9 South 8 South 9 South 12 South 6 South 9 South 9 South 9 South Township 11 West 18 West 18 West 17 West 6 West 19 West 19 West 18 West 12 West 18 West 17 West 18 West 13 West 18 West 18 West 16 West 18 West 6 West 15 West 18 West 18 West 19 West Range Location 24, 25 31 3 25 14, 15, 22, 23 29 7 7 16 5 27, 28, 22, 21 4 12, 13 8 5 31 6 15 31 4 4, 5 14 Section 116 36 122 10 468 30 333 171 20 17 20 8 15 80 8 656 18 97 60 21 201 8 No. of Lots 22-401286 22-401007 22-400243 22-400426 22-401632 22-400197 22-400480 22-400385 ADWR File No.2 Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate ADWR Adequacy Determination Table 7.4-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lower Gila Basin1 D C C C C C C Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 03/14/74 02/29/80 01/15/75 01/15/87 02/14/86 05/05/78 05/18/04 08/13/03 06/23/83 07/18/86 02/02/00 12/06/00 07/01/74 03/23/05 12/13/99 06/01/73 04/25/01 12/20/85 05/19/75 09/25/00 10/29/87 02/05/75 Dry Lot Subdivision Graham Water Service Dry Lot Subdivision Tacna Water Company Ajo Improvement Company NA Town of Wellton Town of Wellton Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Wellton Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Wellton Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Wellton Town of Wellton Mohawk Water Company Town of Wellton Ajo Improvement Company Dry Lot Subdivision Town of Wellton Town of Wellton Dry Lot Subdivision Water Provider at Time of Application Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Date of Determination Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Yuma Sports Valley Condominiums Tacna Manor VanGelder Subdivision 24 25 26 11 South 8 South 10 South 10 South Township 20 West 17 West 19 West 19 West Range Location 6 25 22 15 Section 18 14 24 73 No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 01/24/86 08/12/81 09/01/82 01/14/82 Date of Determination Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Wellton, Town of Tacna Water Company Graham Water Company Graham Water Service Water Provider at Time of Application Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Not available to ADWR at this time Yuma Yuma Yuma Sandpiper # 1 23 County Subdivision Name Map Key Table 7.4-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lower Gila Basin (cont'd)1 230 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 231 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower GIla Basin DRAFT 232 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Lower Gila Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005.* _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006.* _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005.* _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004.* _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004.* Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2006, Statement of claimants filed by the Indian tribes or the United States on their behalf in the Gila and Little Colorado River adjudications: Data files, ADWR Office of Planning and Adjudications Support. _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 233 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005.* _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover.* _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html.* Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. D Davey-Cairo Engineering Inc., 2005, Hydrologic Study, Tacna Water Company, Water Service Area Expansion. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* 234 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 F Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 2003: USGS Water-Data Report AZ-03-1.* Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M McCormack, H.F., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2002, Water resources data Arizona, water year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ-02-1.* N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snowcourse stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., and Smith, C.F., 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* R R.B. Williams and Associates, Inc., 1974, Water Report for Orange Grove Ranch Estates, Yuma, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* _____, 1975, Water Report for Arletta Estates Subdivision, Wellton, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* T Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 235 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____ 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005.* Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* W.S. Gookin & Associates, 1974, Adequacy of Water Supply for Crystal Sands and San Cristobal Subdivisions, Yuma County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Supplemental Reading Andersen, Mark, 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th 236 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Anning, D.W., 2002, Estimation and analysis of the uncertainty in stream flow and change in reservoir-content data at selected stream flow-gaging stations in the Lower Colorado River network, 1995-99: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Biggs, T. H., Dempsey, K.A., and Pearthree, P.A., 2002, Surficial geology and geomorphology of the Tinajas Altas Area, Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range, Yuma County, Southwestern Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 02-02, 21 p. Bureau of Reclamation, 2000, Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Clean Colorado River Alliance, 2006, Recommendations to Address Colorado River Water Quality. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 2005, Water Quality Standards for Salinity: Colorado River System. Cordy, G., 2004, Pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater compounds in Arizona’s effluent, and its implications for water reuse: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Harris, R.C. 1999, Bibliography and review of water quality studies in the upper Gila River watershed, Arizona: AZGS Open-File Report 99-25, 67 p. Hart, R., 1999, Water quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS national stream accounting network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, White Mountains Arizona. Huckleberry, G., 1996, Historical geomorphology of the Gila River: AZGS Open –File Report 96-14, 31 p. Kepner, W. G., 1987, Organochlorine contaminant investigation of the lower Gila River, Arizona: USWFS unnumbered report, 17 p. King, K. A., and Baker, D. L., 1995, Contaminants in fish and wildlife of the middle Gila River, Arizona: USFWS unnumbered report, 17 p. King, K. A., Andrews, B. J., Martinez, C. T., and Kepner, W. G., 1997, Environmental contaminants in fish and wildlife of the lower Gila River, Arizona: USFWS Project No. 22410-1130-2F30, 71 p. Klawon, J.E., and Pearthree, P.A. 2001, Geomorphology of the western crater range, Barry Goldwater Air Force Range, Southeastern Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 01-03, 19 p. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT 237 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Index to Section 7.0 Geography 3 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 7, 9 12, 14-15 Environmental Conditions National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves 24,25,27 Population 29, 31 Water Supply Groundwater 31 40, 41 Cultural Water Use Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand Water Resource Issues Issue Surveys 238 48, 51 53, 55, 59 61, 62, 63 67-69 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin DRAFT Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 239 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.1 Geography of the McMullen Valley Basin The McMullen Valley Basin, located in the northeastern part of the planning area, is 649 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.5-1. The basin is characterized by two valleys bordered by mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub with small amounts of southwestern interior chaparral and semi-desert grassland. (See Figure 7.0-7) • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.5-1 are: o Basin communities of Aguila, Salome and Wenden o Centennial Wash running east to west through the center of the basin o McMullen Valley in the western portion of the basin and Aguila Valley in the eastern portion of the basin o Harquahala Mountains along the southern basin boundary o The lowest point in the basin at approximately 1,680 feet where Centennial Wash exits the basin southeast of Salome Not well shown on Figure 7.5-1 are the Harcuvar Mountains on the northern basin boundary with the highest point in the basin at 5,242 feet. 240 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 241 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.2 Land Ownership in the McMullen Valley Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the McMullen Valley Basin is shown in Figure 7.5-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the limited number of land ownership types. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 51.8% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Yuma Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • This basin contains 9,000 acres of the 23,000 acre Harquahala Mountains Wilderness and 14,000 acres of the 25,000 acre Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Land uses include grazing, resource conservation and recreation. State Trust Land • 33.4% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Land uses include agriculture and grazing. Private • 14.8% of the land is private. • Land uses include agriculture, domestic and commercial. 242 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 243 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.3 Climate of the McMullen Valley Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and AZMET stations are complied in Table 7.5-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.5-3. Figure 7.5-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The McMullen Valley Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.5-1A • Temperatures at the two NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations in the basin range from an average high of 88.1°F at Salome 6 SE to an average low of 47.6°F at Aguila. • Average seasonal rainfall follows a bi-modal pattern with approximately one-third of the average seasonal rainfall occurring in the winter (January-March) season and one-third in the summer (July-September) season. The highest average annual rainfall in the basin is 8.30 inches at the Aguila station. AZMET • Refer to Table 7.5-1C • There is one AZMET station in the basin, Aguila. This station is at 2,149 feet and has an annual evaporation rate of 84.38 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.5-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 18 inches in the Harcuvar Mountains along the northern basin boundary and as low as eight inches in the middle of the basin. 244 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-1 Climate Data for the McMullen Valley Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Aguila 2,170 1971-2000 85.3/Jul 47.6/Dec 3.20 0.42 2.81 1.87 8.30 Salome 6 SE 1,700 1908-1957 88.1/Jul 48.5/Jan 2.53 0.52 3.09 1.75 7.87 Source: WRCC, 2003 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in feet) (in inches) for Averages None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Aguila Period of Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches Elevation Record Used (Number of years to calculate averages ) (in feet) for Averages 2,149 84.38 (6) 1987 - current Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 245 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 246 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the McMullen Valley Basin Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.5-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.5-4. Flood ALERT equipment and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 7.5-4. There are no USGS streamflow gages in this basin. A description of stream data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of reservoir data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.11. A description of stockpond data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.15. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 7.5-3. • Most of the eight ALERT gages are located south of Centennial Wash. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.5-4. • There are no large reservoirs in this basin. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in two small reservoirs. • There are 146 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 7.5-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.2 inches per year or 10.66 acre-feet per square mile, in the easternmost portion of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or five acre-feet per square mile, in the remainder of the basin. Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 247 USGS Station Name Drainage Area (in mi2) Mean Basin Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Station Name Centennial @ Wenden Grass Wash @ US 60 Outlaw Hill Gladden Centennial near Aguila Centennial Wash Smith Peak Ritter Dam Station ID 5090 5155 5165 5170 5175 5180 5190 7140 Notes: FCD = Flood Control District 248 None Winter Spring Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Fall Minimum Median Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation/Stage Station Type 11/21/2002 5/1/1980 11/19/1981 6/5/2001 8/27/2002 5/13/2002 9/19/2001 9/2/1998 Install Date Maximum Years of Record Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa County FCD Maricopa Country FCD Responsibility Mean Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Table 7.5-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the McMullen Valley Basin Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Station Number Table 7.5-2 Streamflow Data for the McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the McMullen Valley Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 1 Total maximum storage: 374 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 1 Total surface area: 7 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 146 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 249 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 250 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the McMullen Valley Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.5-5. There are no perennial or intermittent streams and no major or minor springs in the McMullen Valley Basin. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS is two. Table 7.5-5 Springs in the McMullen Valley Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and USGS, 2006): 2 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 251 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the McMullen Valley Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.5-6. Figure 7.5-5 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.5-6 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.5-5. Figure 7.5-7 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.2. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.19. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.5-6 and Figure 7.5-5. • The major aquifer in this basin is basin fill. • Groundwater flow is toward two cones of depression, one in the Wenden/Salome area and the other in the Aguila area. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.5-6 and Figure 7.5-7. • As shown on Figure 7.5-6, well yields in this basin are generally between 1,000 and 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). • One source of well yield information, based on 167 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 1,500 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.5-6. • There are two estimates of natural recharge; both estimates indicate that natural recharge is 1,000 acre-feet per year. • The only source of natural recharge is rainfall (ADWR 1994). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.5-6. • There are three estimates of water in storage for this basin, two at 14 million acre-feet and the third at 15.1 million acre-feet, all to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.5-5. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 25 index wells in this basin; hydrographs for eight index wells are shown on Figure 7.5-6. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 636 feet in the vicinity of Aguila and the shallowest is 29 feet west of Wenden. 252 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-6 Groundwater Data for the McMullen Valley Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 649 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Basin Fill Range 150-2,558 Median 1,132 (90 wells measured) Range 9-3,500 Median 1,500 (167 wells reported) Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 150-3,500 ADWR (1994) Range 0-2,500 USGS (1994) 1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) 15,100,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994) 14,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 14,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 25 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (114 wells measured) 1 Prevelopment Estimate 11/26/2007 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 253 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 254 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.5-6 McMullen Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A 475 WELL DEPTH: 800 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-08-09 26CC D Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 525 575 1975 B 450 500 1975 525 C 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 660 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 basin fill B-07-07 17DCC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1000 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-07-08 20DDD 575 625 675 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 255 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.5-6 (cont’d) McMullen Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 425 D WELL DEPTH: 560 ft USE: STOCK basin fill B-07-11 08DAD2 475 525 1975 200 E 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 340 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-07-11 27ABC 250 300 1975 1985 256 YEAR 1995 2005 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.5-6 (cont’d) McMullen Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 225 F WELL DEPTH: 1432 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-06-12 15BBB Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 275 325 375 425 350 1975 G 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 702 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 basin fill B-05-13 01BDA 400 450 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 257 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.5-6 (cont’d) McMullen Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 50 H WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED recent stream alluvium B-05-12 32ADB 100 150 1975 1985 258 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 259 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.7 Water Quality of the McMullen Valley Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.5-7A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.5-8 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.5-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mine Sites • Refer to Table 7.5-7A. • Fifty-eight wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • Eighty-two percent of the wells equaled or exceeded the parameter for fluoride. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, chromium, lead and nitrates. 260 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the McMullen Valley Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 8 South 8 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 9 West 10 West 7 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 11 West 11 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 12 West 12 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 32 35 17 16 17 17 17 18 30 4 11 11 12 15 25 5 7 13 13 13 19 19 20 22 22 23 23 30 30 31 31 31 31 32 32 35 36 36 36 5 35 1 1 2 2 2 10 As, F, Pb F F F F F F F As, F, Pb As, F, Pb NO3 F F F F Cr F F F As, F F F F F F As, F As, F F F As, F F F As, F F F F F F F F F F F F F As, F, NO3 NO3 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 261 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the McMullen Valley Basin cont1 Site Location Map Key Site Type 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 14 14 As, F, NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 F, NO3 F NO3 F, TDS As, NO3 NO3 Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1976 and 2001. As = Arsenic Cr = Chromium NO3 = Nitrate/ Nitrite F = Fluoride Pb = Lead 2 262 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 263 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.8 Cultural Water Demands in the McMullen Valley Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 7.5-8. Figure 7.5-9 shows the location of demand centers. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 7.5-9. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.5-8 and Figure 7.5-9. • Population in this basin increased from 280 in 1980 to 2,291 in 2000 and projections suggest the population will more than double by 2050. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation located near Wenden/Salome and in the Aguila area. • Groundwater use for agriculture increased 27% from 1991 to 2003. • Both municipal and industrial groundwater demand are minimal in this basin. Municipal demand increased 20% from 1991 to 2003 and industrial demand remained the same. • There is no reported surface water demand in this basin. • As of 2003 there were 362 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 187 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 7.5-9. • There is one wastewater treatment plant in this basin, Forepaugh WWTP, no other information was available on this facility. 264 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-8 Cultural Water Demands in the McMullen Valley Basin1 Year Recent Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered (Census) and Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected (DES) Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation Population 1971 1972 120,000 NR 1973 1974 1975 1732 1272 1976 1977 123,000 NR 1978 1979 1980 280 1981 395 1982 509 27 9 94,000 NR 1983 624 1984 739 1985 853 1986 968 1987 1,083 24 3 60,000 NR 1988 1,197 1989 1,312 1990 1,427 1991 1,513 1992 1,599 38 1 450 <300 77,000 NR 1993 1,686 1994 1,772 1995 1,859 1996 1,945 1997 2,032 79 1 500 <300 79,500 NR 1998 2,118 1999 2,205 2000 2,291 2001 2,430 39 0 550 <300 98,000 NR 2002 2,569 2003 2,707 2010 3,679 4,143 2020 4,565 2030 4,835 2040 5,028 2050 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 3 28 WELL TOTALS: 362 187 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Other water-supply wells are listed in the ADWR Well Registry for this basin, but they do not have completion dates. These wells are summed here. NR - Not reported 11/26/2007 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Data Source ADWR (1994) USGS (2005) 265 NA Forepaugh WWTP 266 NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant Ownership Facility Name Forepaugh City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Watercourse Evaporation Irrigation Pond NA Golf Course Discharged to Wildlife another Area facility Disposal Method Table 7.5-9 Effluent Generation in the McMullen Valley Basin Infiltration Basins Population Not Served Year of Record Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Current Treatment Level Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 267 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the McMullen Valley Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.5-10. Figure 7.5-10 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 7.5-10 • As of May, 2005 nine subdivisions had been reviewed for an adequacy determination. All subdivisions are in La Paz County. • Of the 2,030 lots in nine subdivisions, 1,904 lots or 94% were determined to be adequate. • One determination of inadequacy was made due to water quality. 268 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Indian Hills Airpark II Indian Hills Estates 2 3 Outback Acres Salome Heights Western Sky Airpark 7 8 9 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North Township 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West Range Location 17 27 27 26 28 21 21 21 21 Section 285 118 55 236 233 31 516 126 430 No. of Lots 22-401248 22-400390 22-400391 22-400388 22-400953 22-401492 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate ADWR Adequacy Determination C Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 3/31/04 3/15/01 10/17/00 10/16/00 8/7/75 2/28/74 8/17/87 4/22/03 1/12/05 Date of Determination Western Sky Airpark Water Improvement District Dry Lot Subdivision Salome Heights Development, LLC Salome Heights Development, LLC Keaton Water Company Keaton Water Company Keaton Development Company Keaton Development Company Keaton Development Company Water Provider at the Time of Application D. Unable to locate records C. Water Quality B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. 3 A. Physical/Continuous La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz County Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 1 Notes: Monroe Heights 6 5 4 Desert Links 1 Keller Retirement Community Keller Retirement Community Unit 6 Subdivision Name Map Key Table 7.5-10 Adequacy Determinations in the McMullen Valley Basin 1 269 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 270 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 McMullen Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005.* _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005.* _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us.* Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit*. _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 271 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover. _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover. _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html.* Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses.* D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* F Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 2003: USGS Water-Data Report AZ-03-1.* Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial 272 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M McCormack, H.F., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2002, Water resources data Arizona, water year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ-02-1.* N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snowcourse stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., and Smith, C.F., 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* S Southwest Water and Mineral Resources, 2000, Hydrologic Study Report for the Harrisburg Valley Consortium Subdivisions: Indian Hills Airpark and Indian Hills Airpark II, Indian Hills Estates, Salome Heights, Salome Heights RVS, Outback Acres, Monroe Heights. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* _____, 2002, Hydrologic Study Report for the Western Sky Airpark Development, La Paz County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* _____, 2004, Hydrologic Study Report for the Proposed Sunset Links Subdivision, La Paz County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* T Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 273 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____ 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005.* Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http:// www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Supplemental Reading Andersen, Mark, 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Pool, D.R., 1987, Geohydrology of McMullen Valley, west central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4041, 51 p. 274 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Remick, W.H., 1981, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the McMullen Valley Area, Maricopa, Yavapai and Yuma Counties, Arizona: Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series #6. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona, and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for La Paz County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT 275 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Index to Section 7.0 Geography 3 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 7, 8, 10 14 Environmental Conditions Vegetation 19 Water Supply Central Arizona Project Groundwater 38 39, 40, 41 Cultural Water Use Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 47 53, 57-58 61, 62, 63 Water Resource Issues Groundwater Transportation Issue Surveys 276 66 67-69 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin DRAFT Section 7.6 Parker Basin 277 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.1 Geography of the Parker Basin The Parker Basin, located in the western part of the planning area is 2,229 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.6-1. The basin is characterized by plains and valleys with low elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub. (See Figure 7.0-7) • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.6-1 are: o Principal basin communities of Cibola, Ehrenberg, Parker and Quartzite o Other communities of Poston and Cienega Springs o The Colorado River along the western basin boundary o Plains and valleys including La Posa Plain in the center of the basin, Parker Valley on the northwestern basin boundary and Cactus Plain in the northern portion of the basin o Mountain ranges including the Trigo and Dome Rock Mountains in the center of the basin o The highest point in the basin, Cunningham Mountain, at 3,314 feet in the Dome Rock Mountains east of Ehrenberg Not well shown on Figure 7.6-1 are the Kofa Mountains on the eastern basin boundary and the lowest point in the basin at 150 feet where the Colorado River exits the basin. 278 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 279 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.2 Land Ownership in the Parker Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Parker Basin is shown in Figure 7.6-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the very small proportion of private land. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 49.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Yuma Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • This basin includes the 30,000 acre Trigo Mountains Wilderness, the 19,000 acre Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness and the 15,000 acre East Cactus Plain Wilderness. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Land uses include grazing, resource conservation and recreation. U.S. Military • 19.5% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military as the Yuma Proving Ground. • Primary land use is military activity. Indian Reservation • 16.4% of the land is under tribal ownership as the Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and agriculture. National Wildlife Refuge • 9.3% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Cibola NWR and the Imperial NWR • Land uses include resource conservation, wildlife protection and recreation. State Trust Land • 3.7% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is agriculture. Private • 1.3% of the land is private. • Small parcels of private land are located in the vicinity of Highway 95, north of Cibola, and at Parker and Cienega Springs • Land uses include domestic, commercial and agriculture. Other • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) • USBOR lands are located north of Cibola along the Colorado River. • Primary land use is unknown. 280 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 281 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.3 Climate of the Parker Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and AZMET stations are complied in Table 7.6-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.6-3. Figure 7.6-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Parker Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.6-1A • Temperatures at the five NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations in the basin range from an average high temperature of 94.8°F at Quartzite to an average low of 49.8°F at Bouse. • Average seasonal rainfall follows a bi-modal pattern with approximately one-third of the average seasonal rainfall occurring in the winter (January-March) season and one-third in the summer (July-September) season. The highest average annual rainfall in this basin is 5.89 inches at the Bouse station. AZMET • Refer to Table 7.6-1C • There is one AZMET station in the basin, Parker. This station is at 308 feet and has an annual reference evaportranspiration of 82.93 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.6-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 10 inches along the eastern basin boundary and as low as four inches or less along the Colorado River on the western basin boundary. 282 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-1 Climate Data for the Parker Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Bouse 930 Ehrenberg 320 Ehrenberg 2E Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 1971 - 2000 92.2/Jul 49.8/Dec 2.14 0.38 2.12 1.25 5.89 1948 - 1977 1 93.1/Jul 52.8/Jan 0.94 0.28 1.41 0.90 3.50 460 1971 - 2000 94.4/Jul 54.5/Dec 1.42 0.21 1.69 1.05 4.37 Parker 6 NE 41 1971 - 2000 93.2/Jul 53.9/Dec 2.22 0.28 1.45 1.22 5.17 Quartzsite 870 1971 - 2000 94.8/Jul 51.8/Dec 1.36 0.23 1.18 0.74 3.51 Source: WRCC, 2003 Notes: 1 Average temperature data from period of record shown; average precipitation data from 1971 - 2000 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Avg. Annual Evap Used for Averages (in inches) None Source: WRCC, 2003 C. AZMet: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Parker 308 Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) Used for Averages 82.93 (6) 1987 - current Source: Arizona Meteorlogical Network, 2005 C. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Average Snowpack, as Snow Water Content, at the Beginning of the Month, in Inches (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 283 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 284 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.5 Surface Water Conditions in the Parker Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 7.6-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.6-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.6-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 7.6-4. There are no USGS runoff contour data available for this basin. A description of stream data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of reservoir data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.11. A description of stockpond data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.15. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 7.6-2. • Data from three stations located on the Colorado River are shown in the table and on Figure 7.6-4. • Average seasonal flow is highest in spring and summer at the three stations and is regulated by scheduled releases from dams. • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is more than 20 million acre feet in 1984 at the Colorado River below Parker Dam station with a contributing drainage area of 182,700 square miles. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 7.6-3. • As of October 2005 there was one precipitation station in the basin located at Tyson Wash. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.6-4. • The basin contains five large reservoirs or dams. The largest, Lake Havasu, with a maximum storage of 651,000 acre-feet, is located in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area but Parker Dam is located at the basin boundary. • Reservoirs in this basin are used for water supply, irrigation, hydroelectric power, recreation and fish and wildlife. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in five small reservoirs in the basin. • There are five registered stockponds in this basin. Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 285 182,700 182,200 183,800 USGS Station Name Colorado River below Parker Dam1 Colorado River below Palo Verde Dam1 Colorado River below Cibola Valley 9427520 9429100 9429300 NA 260 400 Mean Basin Elevation (in feet) 4/1956 - 9/1988 1957 - 2004 (real time) 1936 - 2004 (real time) Period of Record 22 22 23 Winter 28 31 28 Spring 30 30 28 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 19 17 20 Fall 286 1 5,507,468 6,187,223 5,365,301 (1982) Quartzite 7203 Precipitation Station Type Notes: ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources Station Name Station ID 12/5/2001 Install Date 7,229,140 Median 4,369,340 (1993) 5,534,256 (1993) Minimum ADWR Responsibility 7,801,072 5,831,096 8,918,956 Mean 31 39 61 Years of Record Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 19,016,442 (1984) 9,860,880 (1958) 20,409,560 (1984) Maximum Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Table 7.6-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Parker Basin Notes: Station in California NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Annual Flow/Year statistics were only completed for those gages that had at least 3 years of 12 month records. Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Drainage Area (in mi2) Station Number Table 7.6-2 Streamflow Data for the Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Parker Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) 1 Lake Havasu (Parker) 2 Moovalya Lake (Headgate Rock) 2 OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION Bureau of Reclamation 651,000 S, I, H Federal Bureau of Reclamation 20,000 I, H, R Federal Source: US Army Corps of Engineers 2005 B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)3 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) 3 Cibola 4 Island 5 Adobe OWNER/OPERATOR Bureau of Reclamation/ USFWS Bureau of Reclamation/ USFWS Bureau of Reclamation/ USFWS MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE JURISDICTION 400 R,F Federal 220 F Federal 209 F Federal 1 C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)3 Total number: 5 Total surface area: 188 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 5 Notes: S = Supply; I = Irrigation; H = Hydroelectric power; F=Fish & wildlife pond; R=Recreation 2 Dam is located in the Parker Basin and lake storage is in the Lake Havasu Basin in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area. 3 Capacity data not available to ADWR USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 287 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 288 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Parker Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.6-5. The location of a perennial stream is shown on Figure 7.6-5. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • There are no intermittent streams and one perennial stream, the Colorado River. There are no major or minor springs in the basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 11 to 12, depending on the database reference. Table 7.6-5 Springs in the Parker Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and USGS, 2006): 11 - 12 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 289 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 290 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Parker Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.6-6. Figure 7.6-6 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.6-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.6-6. Figure 7.6-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.2. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.19. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.6-6 and Figure 7.6-6. • The major aquifer is recent stream alluvium and sedimentary rock (Bouse Formation). • Groundwater flow is from the south and east toward the Colorado River. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.6-6 and Figure 7.6-8. • As shown on Figure 7.6-8, well yields are generally less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) although higher well yields are found near the Colorado River. • One source of well yield information, based on 75 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 100 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.6-6. • The estimate of natural recharge is 241,000 acre-feet per year. • The largest source of natural recharge is the Colorado River (ADWR 1994). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.6-6. • There are three estimates of water in storage ranging from 14 million acre-feet to 24 million acre-feet, both to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.6-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures six index wells in this basin; hydrographs for the six index wells and two additional wells are shown on Figure 7.6-7. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 553 feet north of Quartzsite and the shallowest is 10 feet west of the Cibola Ehrenberg Road near the Colorado River. Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 291 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-6 Groundwater Data for the Parker Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 2,229 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Sedimentary Rock (Bouse Formation) N/A Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Range 2-6,000 Median 100 (75 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 30-900 ADWR (1990 and 1994) Range 0-2,500 USGS (1994) 241,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 14,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994) 24,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 21,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 6 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1995-97 (348 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 11/21/2007 292 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 293 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.6-7 Parker Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 50 5 0 100 500 550 450 500 A DEPTH: 281 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1985 1975 B 1995 DEPTH: 533 ft USE: UNUSED 1995 DEPTH: 591 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1975 2005 B-07-19 28CBC 1985 1975 C B-09-19 07BBB 2005 B-04-19 29BCB1 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 294 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.6-7 (cont’d) Parker Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 100 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 150 300 350 50 2 5 75 75 0 50 5 0 D DEPTH: 180 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1975 E 1985 1975 2005 basin fill B-03-21 08ABD 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-02-18 09DDC DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 1975 G 1995 DEPTH: 604 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1975 F basin fill B-03-19 29BAB 1985 1995 2005 sedimentary rocks B-02-22 16BBA DEPTH: 998 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 YEAR Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 1995 2005 295 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 296 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.7 Water Quality of the Parker Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.6-7A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.6-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.6-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mine Sites • Refer to Table 7.6-7A. • Fifty-two wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded was nitrate. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, chromium, lead, fluoride and organics. Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 297 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Parker Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) 10 North 10 North 10 North 9 North 9 North 6 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 10 West 20 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 27 27 27 7 1 13 16 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 F F F As As F NO3 As As, NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics NO3 Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics NO3 As As As NO3 F NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 298 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Parker Basin (cont'd)1 Site Location Map Key Site Type 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 3 North 1 North 1 South 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 23 West 23 West 28 28 28 29 31 7 33 32 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 Pb As TDS TDS B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Area of Impaired Impaired Stream Lake (in acres) Reach (in miles) Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Water quality samples collected between 1976 and 2001. As = Arsenic Cr = Chromium F = Fluoride Pb = Lead Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides NO3 = Nitrate/ Nitrite Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 299 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 300 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Parker Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 7.6-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 7.6-9. Figure 7.6-10 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.6-8 and Figure 7.6-10. • Population in this basin increased from 11,339 in 1980 to 16,166 in 2000 and projections suggest an increase of more than 11,000 people by 2050. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation on the Colorado River Indian Tribe’s land in the northwestern portion of the basin. • Agricultural surface water demand remained relatively constant from 1991 to 2003 with 653,000 acre-feet diverted per year on average in 2000-2003. Agricultural groundwater demand decreased slightly between 1991 and 2003. • Municipal demand is relatively small. Groundwater demand increased 13% and surface water demand increased 25% from 1991 to 2003. • There is a relatively small amount of industrial demand in this basin associated with sand and gravel operations. • As of 2003 there were 1,551 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 93 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 7.6-9. • There are 12 wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for 10 facilities and information on the volume of effluent generated was available for all 12 facilities. These facilities serve almost 12,000 people and generate almost 2,200 acre-feet of effluent per year. • One facility discharges to a watercourse, two facilities discharge for irrigation, one to a golf course and five discharge to unlined impoundments that recharge the aquifer. Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 301 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Parker Basin 1 Year Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet)3 Number of Registered Recent (Census) and Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected (DES) Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation 1971 1972 9,000 1973 1,251,0004 1974 1975 712 9142 1976 1977 21,000 1978 1,102,0004 1979 1980 11,339 1981 11,398 1982 11,457 202 9 25,000 1983 11,516 1,130,0004 1984 11,575 1985 11,634 1986 11,693 1987 11,752 208 8 18,000 1988 11,810 1,229,0004 1989 11,869 1990 11,928 1991 12,352 1992 12,776 100 3 2,900 NR 1,300 400 NR 662,000 1993 13,200 1994 13,623 1995 14,047 1996 14,471 1997 14,895 82 0 3,200 NR <1,000 450 NR 667,000 1998 15,318 1999 15,742 2000 16,166 2001 16,418 0 3,300 <300 <1,000 500 NR 653,000 24 2002 16,670 2003 16,923 2010 18,688 2020 23,294 2030 25,705 2040 26,759 2050 27,222 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 5 21 2 WELL TOTALS: 1,551 93 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Includes pumpage and diversion of Colorado River Contract Water. 4 Includes surface-water diversions in the Lower Gila and Yuma basins. 5 Other water-supply wells are listed in the ADWR Well Registry for this basin, but they do not have completion dates. These wells are summed here. NR - Not reported 302 12/20/2007 Data Source ADWR (1994) USGS (2005) ADWR (2005) Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT State Park Parker School Reservation Parker Poston Poston Poston Arizona Department of Transportation State of Arizona Buckskin SD NA Colorado River Tribes Colorado River Tribes Colorado River Tribes Colorado River Tribes Bureau of Indian Affairs Colorado River Housing Authority Quartzsite Private Bouse WWTP Buckskin Mtn. WWTF Buckskin/Sandpiper WWTP Colorado River Joint Venture Headstart Sewer System Mochem Sewer System Parker WWTP Poston Poston BIA WWTF Poston CRHA Quartzsite WWRF Thompson Enterprises RV Park Quartzsite NA 1,000 244 489 600 3,045 1,000 90 5,000 50 240 NA Population Served Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant WWRF: Waste Water Reclamation Facility SD: Sanitation District Rest Area Ownership Facility Name Parker City/Location Served 29 370 11 11 67 336 112 10 896 6 11 301 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) X Watercourse Evaporation Pond X X Irrigation NA NA Emerald Canyon Golf Course Wildlife Area Disposal Method Table 7.6-9 Effluent Generation in the Parker Basin NA NA Discharged to Another Facility X X X X X Infiltration Basins Adv.Trt. I Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Adv. Trt. I Secondary Current Treatment Level NA 47 NA NA NA 125 90 14,000 1,450 NA Population Not Served 303 2001 2001 2001 2000 2002 1999 2000 1999 1996 2001 1996 Year of Record Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 304 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Parker Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.6-10. Figure 7.6-11 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 7.6-10 • As of May 2005, 22 subdivisions had been reviewed for an adequacy determination. All subdivisions are in La Paz County. • Of the 1,539 lots in 22 subdivisions for which lot information is available, 1,279 lots or 83% were determined to be adequate. • The most common reason for a determination of inadequacy is insufficient data. Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 305 La Paz La Paz Brandy Hills West Emerald Springs Unit I Highland Estates Amended La Paz Estates 2 3 4 5 La Paz Moon Mountain Estates #2 Mountain View Resort 10 11 12 Riverview Verde West R.V.Park Vinnedge 20 21 22 Rainbow Acres Unit 2 18 La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz 4 North 11 North 10 North 11 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 10 North 10 North 3 North 3 North 3 South 10 North 3 North 7 North 3 South Township 19 West 18 West 19 West 18 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 22 West 22 West 19 West 22 West 17 West 22 West Range Location 16 27 27 27 7 7 7 7 28 21 21 21 21 15 22 29 2 2 27 3, 10 16 30 Section 5 327 NA 137 123 113 63 248 10 54 24 12 46 20 23 156 17 53 92 16 No. of Lots 22-400247 22-400086 22-300429 22-300333 22-300549 22-300548 22-300299 ADWR File No.2 Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate D D A1 A1 A1 A1 B B C 12/8/75 4/17/86 10/22/74 06/30/76 5/8/00 8/2/99 9/15/98 9/22/97 1/11/91 10/15/98 10/15/98 6/24/85 4/10/80 4/4/94 1/14/92 6/10/84 5/9/88 5/28/76 12/5/94 5/7/97 02/21/74 9/18/74 ADWR Reason(s) for Date of Adequacy Inadequacy Determination Determinatio Determination Dry Lot Subdivision Consolidated Utilities Lake-Side Utilities, Inc. Holiday Harbor Utilities Company Q Mountain Water Company Q Mountain Water Company Q Mountain Water Company Q Mountain Water Company Q Mountain Water Company Town of Quartzite Town of Quartzite Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Consolidated Water Utilities, Ltd. Consolidated Water Utilities Dry Lot Subdivision Ehrenberg Water Company La Paz Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Ehrenberg Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Water Provider at Time of Application 306 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records 19 17 Rainbow Acres Unit 3 Phase I Rainbow Acres Unit 3 Phase II Ranchero Estates 1&2 16 15 14 13 La Paz Moon Mountain Estates 9 Mountain View Subdivision Q Mountain Mobile Home & RV Rainbow Acres Unit 1 Phase II La Paz Miraleste Shores Estates 8 La Paz Lake Moovalya Keys (amended) La Paz La Paz La Paz Estates # 1 La Paz Valley Acres 6 7 La Paz La Paz La Paz College Acres 1 County Subdivision Name Map Key Table 7.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Parker Basin1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 307 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Parker Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division.* _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005.* _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004.* _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004.* Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* 308 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover.* _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html.* Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses.* D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* F Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 2003: USGS Water-Data Report AZ-03-1.* Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 309 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Investigations Atlas-HA664.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M McCormack, H.F., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2002, Water resources data Arizona, water year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ-02-1.* N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snowcourse stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., and Smith, C.F., 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* R R.B. Williams and Associates, 1973, Water Report for La Paz Water Company, Ehrenberg, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. T Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm* US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* 310 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____ 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Supplemental Reading Andersen, Mark, 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Anning, D.W., 2002, Estimation and analysis of the uncertainty in stream flow and change in reservoir-content data at selected stream flow-gaging stations in the Lower Colorado River network, 1995-99: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Benemelis, P., 2003, Lower Colorado River Multi Species Program: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 311 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Bureau of Reclamation, 2000, Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Clean Colorado River Alliance, 2006, Recommendations to Address Colorado River Water Quality. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 2005, Water Quality Standards for Salinity: Colorado River System. Gonzalez, J.L., 1990, An evaluation of the d15N values of nitrate in ground water at Quartzsite, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis, 20 p. Hart, R., 1999, Water quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS national stream accounting network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, White Mountains Arizona. MacNish, R.D., 1992, Scientific challenges in managing the Colorado River: in Interdisciplinary Approaches to Hydrology and Hydrogeology: American Institute of Hydrology, October 1992, p.323-337. Owen-Joyce, S.J., and Kimsey, S.L., 1996, An accounting system for water and consumptive use along the Colorado River, Hoover Dam to Mexico: USGS Water Supply Paper 2407, 94 p. Radtke, D.B., 1990, Environmental contaminants in the lower Colorado River Valley, Arizona, California and Nevada: in Water Quality and Quantity Issues into the 1990’sAdaptations to Current Realities: Phoenix Arizona: Proceedings from the 2nd annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 1990, Casa Grande, Arizona, part R, p.1-21. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 87 p Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for La Paz County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. 312 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Index to Section 7.0 Overview of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 1 Geography 3 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology Climate Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves 5-6 12, 14 15 19 21 24-25, 27 Population 29, 30 Water Supply Colorado River Water Central Arizona Project Groundwater Effluent Contaminated Sites 31 34,35 38 39-40 41 44 Cultural Water Use Tribal Demand 46 Municipal Demand 47, 48, 50-51, 52 Agricultural Demand 58 Industrial Demand 61 Water Resource Issues Colorado River Issues Issue Surveys Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT 65 67-69 313 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 314 Section 7.6 Parker Basin DRAFT Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 315 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.1 Geography of the Ranegras Plain Basin The Ranegras Plain Basin, located in the northern part of the planning area is 912 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.7-1. The basin is characterized by a plain bordered by mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub. (See Figure 7.0-7) • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.7-1 are: o Basin communities of Bouse, Brenda, Hope and Vicksburg o Bouse Wash in the northern portion of the basin o Ranegras Plain in the center of the basin bordered by the Plomosa, New Water and Little Horn Mountains in the west and the Granite Wash and Little Harquahala Mountains in the east o The highest point in the basin at 2,704 feet in the New Water Mountains Not well shown on Figure 7.7-1 is the lowest point in the basin at 930 feet near the Town of Bouse. 316 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 317 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.2 Land Ownership in the Ranegras Plain Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Ranegras Plain Basin is shown in Figure 7.7-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large proportion of U.S. Bureau of Land Management land. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 66.3% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Yuma Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • This basin includes the 25,000 acre New Water Mountains Wilderness and 12,000 acres of the 100,000 acre Eagletail Mountains Wilderness. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Land uses include grazing, resource conservation and recreation. National Wildlife Refuge • 15.5% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). • Land uses include resource conservation, wildlife protection and recreation. Private • 11.1% of the land is private. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and agriculture. State Trust Land • 7.1% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing and agriculture. 318 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 319 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.3 Climate of the Ranegras Plain Basin The Ranegras Plain Basin does not contain NOAA/NWS, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. Figure 7.7-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.7-3 • Average annual rainfall is as high as 14 inches along the eastern basin boundary north of Vicksburg and as low as four inches in the north central portion of the basin. Table 7.7-1 Climate Data for the Ranegras Plain Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Min/Month Average Precipitation (in inches) Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual None Source: WRCC, 2003 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in feet) (in inches) for Averages None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Period of Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches Elevation Record Used (Number of years to calculate averages ) (in feet) for Averages None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 320 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 321 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Ranegras Plain Basin There are no streamflow data, flood ALERT equipment or USGS runoff contour data available for this basin. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.7-4. A description of stream data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of reservoir data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.11. A description of stockpond data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.15. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.7-4. • There are no large or small reservoirs and 16 registered stockponds in this basin. 322 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT USGS Station Name Drainage Area (in mi2) Mean Basin Elevation Period of Record (in feet) None Winter Spring Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Fall Minimum Median Station Name Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Station ID None Station Type Install Date Responsibility Mean Maximum Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Table 7.7-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Ranegras Plain Basin Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Station Number Table 7.7-2 Streamflow Data for the Ranegras Plain Basin Years of Record 323 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.7-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Ranegras Plain Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 16 324 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 325 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Ranegras Plain Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.7-5. There are no perennial or intermittent streams and no major or minor springs in the Ranegras Plain Basin. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS is two. Table 7.7-5 Springs in the Ranegras Plain Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and USGS, 2006): 326 2 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Ranegras Plain Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.7-6. Figure 7.7-5 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.7-6 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.7-5. Figure 7.7-7 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.2. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.19. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.7-6 and Figure 7.7-5. • The major aquifer is basin fill. • Groundwater flow is generally from south to north, with a cone of depression caused by irrigation pumping west of Hope. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.7-6 and Figure 7.7-7. • As shown on Figure 7.7-7, well yields in this basin are generally greater than 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm). • One source of well yield information, based on 68 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 1,150 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.7-6. • There are five estimates of natural recharges ranging from less than 1,000 acre-feet per year to between 4,550 acre-feet and 6,050 acre-feet per year. • The largest source of natural recharge is infiltration of runoff from the Bouse Wash and its tributaries (ADWR 1994). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.7-6. • There are four estimates of water in storage for this basin ranging from nine million acrefeet to 27 million acre-feet, both to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.7-5. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 19 index wells in this basin, hydrographs for six index wells are shown on Figure 7.7-6. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 363 feet south of Vicksburg and the shallowest is 75 feet at Bouse. Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 327 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.7-6 Groundwater Data for the Ranegras Plain Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 912 Name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Major Aquifer(s): Range 812-3,310 Median 1,993.5 (14 wells measured) Range 12-4,000 Median 1,150 (68 wells reported) Well Yields, in gal/min: Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 85-3,310 ADWR (1994) Range 0-2,500 USGS (1994) 5,000 ADWR (1994) 5,500 ADWR (1990) (HMS 18) <1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) 4,550 - 6,050 Briggs (1969) 21,700,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994) 1 9,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 27,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) 15,400,000 - 22,200,000 Johnson (1990) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Current Number of Index Wells: 19 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (133 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 328 12/26/2007 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 329 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.7-6 Ranegras Plain Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 50 A WELL DEPTH: 120 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 100 1975 400 450 100 150 250 B 1985 2005 basin fill B-06-15 27BBA 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-05-16 09BCC WELL DEPTH: 145 ft USE: STOCK 1975 D 1995 WELL DEPTH: 660 ft USE: STOCK 1975 C basin fill B-07-17 23CAC2 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-05-15 35BDD2 WELL DEPTH: 800 ft USE: UNUSED 300 350 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 330 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 7.7-6 (cont’d) Ranegras Plain Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 250 E WELL DEPTH: 905 ft USE: IRRIGATION basin fill B-04-14 32BAA 300 350 300 350 1975 F 1975 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-02-14 10CDC WELL DEPTH: 455 ft USE: STOCK 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 331 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 332 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.7 Water Quality of the Ranegras Plain Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.7-7A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.7-8 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.7-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mine Sites • Refer to Table 7.7-7A. • Ninety-one wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • Seventy-one percent of the wells equaled or exceeded the parameter for fluoride. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, nitrate and total dissolved solids. Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 333 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.7-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Ranegras Plain Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 22 23 23 23 35 6 6 7 8 8 18 18 30 30 30 32 33 33 12 15 15 16 17 17 17 20 22 23 23 26 32 34 12 12 12 4 4 6 20 21 30 9 10 4 19 19 19 19 29 29 29 30 32 32 32 8 8 9 As, F As, F As, F As, F As, F NO3 NO3 NO3, TDS F F F F As, F As, F As, F As, F Pb As, Pb F Cr Cr, TDS F F As As, F F F As, NO3, TDS F NO3, TDS As, F As, F As, F Ba F As, F As, F F, NO3, TDS As, F F As, F, NO3, TDS As, F, Pb As, F As As, F As, F, NO3 F As, F, NO3 As, F F F As, Cr, F As, Cr, F As, Cr, F, NO3 F F, NO3 As As, NO3 Site Location 334 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.7-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Ranegras Plain Basin (cont'd.) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 14 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 13 West 14 West 14 West 10 10 11 11 11 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 18 18 23 28 9 13 13 13 15 18 18 19 19 11 2 2 2 23 19 10 28 F F F As, Cr, F, NO3 F As, Cr, F F As, F F As, F, NO3 As, F, NO3, TDS As As As, F F As, NO3 As, F As As, F As As, F As As As As F As, F, NO3 As, F As, Cr, F As, F As As NO3 Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Site Location B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Designated Use Standard3 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Water quality samples collected between 1979 and 2000. As = Arsenic Ba = Barium Cr = Chromium F = Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate/ Nitrite TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 335 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 336 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Ranegras Plain Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 7.7-8. Figure 7.7-9 shows the location of demand centers. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.7-8 and Figure 7.7-9. • Population in this basin declined from 1,024 in 1980 to 581 in 1990 but is slowly increasing. The 2000 basin population was 904. Projections suggest an increase to 7,581 in 2050. • There are no reported surface water diversions in this basin. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation in the northern half of the basin. • Groundwater use for agriculture decreased 3% from 1991 to 2003 with 28,500 acre-feet of demand on average between 2000 and 2003. • Municipal groundwater demand is relatively small and increased 33% between 1996 and 2003. • There was no reported industrial groundwater demand from 1991 to 2003. A dairy/biorefinery is scheduled to begin operation in late 2007 and another dairy began operating in December 2006. • As of 2003 there were 524 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 74 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 337 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.7-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Ranegras Plain Basin1 Year Recent Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Water (Census) and Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected (DES) Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation Population 1971 1972 18,000 NR 1973 1974 1975 582 1942 1976 1977 11,000 NR 1978 1979 1980 1,024 1981 980 1982 935 70 8 35,000 NR 1983 891 1984 847 1985 802 1986 758 1987 714 60 2 31,000 NR 1988 669 1989 625 1990 581 1991 613 1992 645 48 2 <300 NR 29,500 NR 1993 678 1994 710 1995 742 1996 775 1997 807 95 3 300 NR 32,000 NR 1998 839 1999 872 2000 904 2001 954 31 1 400 NR 28,500 NR 2002 1,005 2003 1,055 2010 1,407 2020 2,139 2030 3,252 2040 4,945 7,518 2050 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 3 26 WELL TOTALS: 524 74 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Other water-supply wells are listed in the ADWR Well Registry for this basin, but they do not have completion dates. These wells are summed here. NR - Not reported 338 11/27/2007 Data Source ADWR (1994) USGS (2005) Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Ownership Population Served Watercourse Evaporation Pond Irrigation Golf Course Wildlife Area Disposal Method No Waste Water Treatment Facilities Identified by ADWR in this Basin Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Facility Name City/Location Served Table 7.7-9 Effluent Generation in the Ranegras Plain Basin Discharged to Another facility Infiltration Basins Current Treatment Level Population Not Served 339 Year of Record Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 340 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT La Paz La Paz Desert Shadows Eden Park RV Subdivision Faybol Subdivision 2 3 4 6 North 4 North 4 North 6 North Township 16 West 15 West 16 West 16 West Range Location 34 1 19 22 Section 29 16 26 64 No. of Lots 22-300247 22-400701 22-400809 ADWR File No.2 Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate ADWR Adequacy Determination A1,C D C Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 01/28/97 05/28/02 01/10/94 10/22/02 Date of Determination Dry Lot Subdivision Desert Shadows Water District Eden Park Homeowners Association Dry Lot Subdivision Water Provider at the Time of Application A. Physical/Continuous 3 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT NA = Data not currently available to ADWR D. Unable to locate records C. Water Quality B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. 2 In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. 1 Notes: La Paz Desert Rose Acres Tract 135 1 La Paz County Subdivision Name Map Key Table 7.7-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Ranegras Plain Basin1 Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 7.7-10 • As of May 2005, four subdivisions have been reviewed for an adequacy determination. All subdivisions are in La Paz County. • Of the 135 lots in four subdivisions, 26 lots or 19% were determined to be adequate. • The most common reason for a determination of inadequacy is water quality. Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.7-11. Figure 7.7-11 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. 7.7.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Ranegras Plain Basin 341 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 342 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Ranegras Plain Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division.* _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. _____ 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004.* Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit.* _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 343 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover.* _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses.* Associated Engineers, Inc., 1975, Water Production Report, Caballo Farms, Yuma County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources.* D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* 344 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 F Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 2003: USGS Water-Data Report AZ-03-1.* Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664.* G Gregor Engineering, Inc., 2002, Hydrology Study for Arizona Department of Water Resources Application for a Water Adequacy Report for Desert Rose Acres, Tract 0135, La Paz County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. J Johnson, B.J., 1990, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Ranegras Plain Basin: La Paz and Yuma Counties, Arizona: Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series #18.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M McCormack, H.F., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2002, Water resources data Arizona, water year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ-02-1.* N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snowcourse stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., and Smith, C.F., 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* T Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 345 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid. cfm US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____ 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. 346 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Supplemental Reading Andersen, Mark, 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona, and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for La Paz County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT 347 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Index to Section 7.0 Geography 3 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 7, 10 12 Environmental Conditions National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves 25 Water Supply Central Arizona Project Water Groundwater Effluent Contaminated Sites 38 39, 40, 41 41 44 Cultural Water Use Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 58 61, 62, 63 348 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin DRAFT Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 349 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.1 Geography of the San Simon Wash Basin The San Simon Wash Basin, located in the southeastern part of the planning area is 2,284 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.8-1. The basin is characterized by plains and valleys bordered by mountain ranges including the highest elevation mountain range in the planning area. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub, semi desert grassland and madrean evergreen woodland along the eastern basin boundary. (See Figure 7.0-7) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.8-1 are: o Basin communities of Gu Vo, Hickiwan, Pisinemo and Sells o San Simon Wash running north-south through the center of the basin o Valleys and plains including the Quijotoa Valley in the northern portion of the basin, the Gu Oidak Valley in the center of the basin and the Baboquivari Valley in the southeastern portion of the basin o Mountain ranges including the Ajo Range on the southwestern basin boundary and the Baboquivari Mountains on the southeastern basin boundary o The highest point in the basin at 7,730 feet in the Baboquivari Mountains o The lowest point at about 1,650 feet where San Simon Wash enters Mexico 350 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 351 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.2 Land Ownership in the San Simon Wash Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the San Simon Wash Basin is shown in Figure 7.8-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large proportion of tribal lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Indian Reservation • 99.2% under tribal ownership as the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, grazing and farming. Private • 0.3% of the land is private. • Small parcels of private land are found in the southern portion of the basin and in the vicinity of Sells. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and grazing. U.S. Bureau of Land Management • 0.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Lower Sonoran Field Office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. • Primary land use is grazing. State Trust Land • 0.2% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing. National Park Service • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. • Land uses include resource conservation and recreation. 352 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 353 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.3 Climate of the San Simon Wash Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 7.8-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.8-3. Figure 7.8-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The San Simon Wash Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.8-1A • There is one NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station in the basin, Sells, with an average high of 86.4°F and an average low of 51.2°F. • Highest average seasonal rainfall, 6.66 inches, occurs in the summer season (JulySeptember) when 55% of the annual average precipitation occurs. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.8-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 32 inches along the eastern basin boundary in the Baboquivari Mountains and as low as eight inches along the border with Mexico and west and south of Hickiwan. 354 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-1 Climate Data for the San Simon Wash Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Sells Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages 2380 Average Temperature Range (in F) 1948 - 20041 Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 86.4/Jul 51.2/Jan 1.46 0.65 6.66 3.31 12.07 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: 1 Average temperature data from period of record shown; average precipitation data from 1971 - 2000 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in feet) (in inches) for Averages None Source: WRCC, 2005 C. AZMET: Station Name Period of Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches Elevation Record Used (Number of years to calculate averages ) (in feet) for Averages None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 355 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 356 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.4 Surface Water Conditions in the San Simon Wash Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 7.8-2. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.8-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 7.8-4. There are no flood ALERT stations in this basin. A description of stream data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of reservoir data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.11. A description of stockpond data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.15. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 7.8-2. • Data from three stations located at two watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 7.8-4. • Average seasonal flow at all three stations is highest in the summer season (July-September). All three stations report zero average seasonal flow in the spring season (April-June). • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is 39,684 acre-feet in 1983 at the Vamori Wash at Kom Vo station. This station reports a mean annual flow of 6,625 acre-feet. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.8-4. • The basin contains one large reservoir, Menegers Lake, with a maximum storage of 15,000 acre-feet. This reservoir is used for irrigation. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in 12 small reservoirs. • There are three registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 7.8-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.5 inches per year or 26.67 acre-feet per square mile, in the eastern portion of the basin around Sells and decreases to 0.1 inches, or five acre-feet per square mile, in the southwest corner of the basin. Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 357 569 NA USGS Station Name San Simon Wash near Pisinimo Vamori Wash at International Boundary near Sells Vamori Wash at Kom Vo 9535100 9535295 9535300 2,699 NA 2,250 11 10 7/1995-4/2001 (discontinued) 2/1972-2003 12 Winter 2/1972-2003 Period of Record 0 0 0 Spring 57 72 70 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 32 17 17 Fall 358 8,905 4,334 941 (1973) 1,340 Median 4,452 (1996) 94 (1980) Minimum Station ID Station Name None Station Type Install Date Responsibility 39,684 (1983) 11,801 (1998) 11,007 (1976) Maximum 28 5 30 Years of Record Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 6,625 8,274 2,372 Mean Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Table 7.8-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the San Simon Wash Basin Notes: NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Annual Flow/Year statistics were only completed for those gages that had at least 3 years of 12 month records. Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. 1,250 Drainage Area (in mi2) Station Number Table 7.8-2 Streamflow Data for the San Simon Wash Basin Mean Basin Elevation (in feet) Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the San Simon Wash Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Menegers Lake Tohono O'odham 15,000 I Tribal USE JURISDICTION Source: US Army Corps of Engineers 2005 B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 12 Total surface area: 144 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 3 Notes: I = Irrigation 1 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 359 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 360 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the San Simon Wash Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.8-5. There are no perennial or intermittent streams and no major or minor springs in the San Simon Wash Basin. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 11 to 17, depending on the database reference. Table 7.8-5 Springs in the San Simon Wash Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and USGS, 2006): 11 - 17 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 361 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.6 Groundwater Conditions of the San Simon Wash Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.8-6. Figure 7.8-5 shows aquifer flow direction, data on water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004 was not available for this basin. Figure 7.8-6 shows well yields in two yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.2. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.19. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.8-6 and Figure 7.8-5 • The major aquifer in this basin is basin fill. • Groundwater flow is generally from east and north to south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.8-6 and Figure 7.8-6 • Well yield data are only available for two wells located in the vicinity of the international boundary. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.8-6 • The estimate of natural recharge is 11,000 acre-feet per year. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.8-6 • There are three estimates of water in storage ranging from 6.7 million acre-feet to 45 million acre-feet, both to a depth of 1,200 feet. 362 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-6 Groundwater Data for the San Simon Wash Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 2,284 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Basin Fill 2,000 (1 well measured) Measured by ADWR and/or USGS 34 (1 well reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 50-3,000 ADWR (1994) Range 0-2,500 USGS (1994) 11,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 6,700,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990) 21,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 45,000,000 ( to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 0 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1979 (148 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 12/4/2007 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 363 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 364 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 365 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.7 Water Quality of the San Simon Wash Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.8-7A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.8-7 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.8-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mine Sites • Refer to Table 7.8-7A. • Fifty-three wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter for arsenic was equaled or exceeded in eighty-one percent of the wells. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include chromium, fluoride, mercury, lead, nitrate and total dissolved solids. 366 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the San Simon Wash Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) 12 North 14 North 15 South 16 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 18 South 18 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 15 South 15 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 3 West 3 West 1 West 3 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 2 West 4 East 4 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 2 East 3 East 1 East 2 East 3 East 4 East 5 East 6 East 5 East 5 East 7 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 2 East 3 East 3.5 East 5 East 25 20 15 10 11 11 35 36 35 34 14 28 36 3 34 36 18 18 18 15 10 3 33 24 30 20 8 5 7 29 5 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 11 17 18 18 28 22 29 1 3 Cd As, Pb As, Pb, NO3 As, Pb As, Hg As, Pb F As, F As, F As As, F As, F As, F TDS As As As As As, F As As As As, Pb As As As Hg As As As F As, F, Pb F As, F As, F F F F As As, F As, F F As, F As As As As Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 367 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the San Simon Wash Basin con't1 Site Location Map Key Site Type 48 49 50 51 52 53 Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) 20 South 20 South 20 South 20 South 20 South 21 South 2 East 3 East 4 East 5 East 7 East 7 East 2 2 2 24 32 7 As As, F As As As As B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Area of Impaired Designated Impaired Lake Stream Reach Use Standard (in acres) (in miles) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1977 and 1980. As = Arsenic Cr = Chromium F = Fluoride Hg = Mercury Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate/ Nitrite TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 2 368 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 369 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.8 Cultural Water Demands in the San Simon Wash Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 7.8-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 7.8-9. Figure 7.8-8 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.8-8 and Figure 7.8-8. • Population in this basin increased from 4,852 in 1980 to 5,833 in 2000 and is projected to increase through 2050. • Most cultural water demand is for irrigation south of Pisinemo. • Agricultural groundwater demand remained relatively constant from 1991to 2003. • Municipal groundwater demand is about 1,000 acre-feet per year and increased 5% from 1991 to 2003. • There are no surface water diversions in this basin. • As of 2003 there were seven registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and no wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. • Tribes are not required to register wells with the Department; therefore, Table 7.8-8 does not reflect all of the wells in the basin. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 7.8-9. • There are two wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • These facilities serve over 4,600 people and generate over 420 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Both facilities discharge to evaporation ponds. 370 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-8 Cultural Water Demands in the San Simon Wash Basin 1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Recent Number of Registered Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) (Census) and Water Supply Wells Projected Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Drilled (DES) Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation Population 62 3,000 NR 4,000 NR Data Source 02 4,852 4,979 5,106 0 0 6,000 5,234 5,361 5,488 5,615 5,742 0 0 7,000 5,870 5,997 6,124 6,095 6,066 0 0 900 NR 6,037 6,008 5,978 5,949 5,920 1 0 950 NR 5,891 5,862 5,833 5,891 0 0 1,000 NR 5,950 6,010 6,443 7,117 7,862 8,685 9,593 WELL TOTALS 7 0 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported 11/27/2007 ADWR (1994) NR NR 4,000 NR 3,800 NR 4,000 NR Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT USGS (2005) 371 Sells Tohono O'odham Nation Sells WWTF 372 NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility Santa Lucia Tohono O'odham Nation Santa Lucia Sewer System City/Location Served Ownership Facility Name 3,858 810 Population Served 336 90 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Watercourse X X Evaporation Irrigation Pond Golf Course Wildlife Area Disposal Method Table 7.8-9 Effluent Generation in the San Simon Wash Basin Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins NA NA Population Not Served 2001 2000 Year of Record Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Secondary Secondary Current Treatment Level Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 373 Subdivision Name 374 Map Key County Township Range Location ADWR File No. None identified by ADWR at this time Section No. of Lots ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination Table 7.8-10 Adequacy Determinations in the San Simon Wash Basin Water Provider at the Time of Application Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Date of Determination No water adequacy applications for the San Simon Wash Basin were filed with the Department as of May 2005. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.1. 7.8.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 San Simon Wash Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004.* _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit.* _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 375 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover.* _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover. _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____ (ALRIS), 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____ (ALRIS), 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index.html.* _____ (ALRIS), 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html.* Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses.* C Carruth, R.L., Hydrogeology of the Quitobonito Springs and the La Abra Plain area, Organ Pipe National Monument, Arizona and Sonora Mexico: USGS Open File Report 95-4295.* D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* 376 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 F Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 2003: USGS Water-Data Report AZ-03-1.* Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664.* H Hollet, K.J., 1985, Geohydrology and water resources of the Papago Farms-Great Plains area, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona, and the Upper Rio Sonoyta area, Sonora Mexico: USGS Water-Supply Paper 2258, 44 p. K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M McCormack, H.F., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2002, Water resources data Arizona, water year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ-02-1.* N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snowcourse stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., and Smith, C.F., 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* T Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 377 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 nid.cfm US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____ 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Supplemental Reading Andersen, Mark, 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Brown, B.T., Hendrickson, L.P., Johnson, R., and Werrell, W., 1983, An inventory of surface water resources at Organ Pipe National Monument, Arizona: National Park Service and University of Arizona Technical Report # 10. 378 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Fisher, S. G., 1989, Hydrologic and limonlogic features of the Quitobaquito pond and springs, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: US Park Service Report. Goodman, B.S., 1992, Hydrogeology of the Quitobaquito Springs Area, La Abra Plain, and the Rio Sonoita Valley, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Heindl, L.A., 1976, Availability of groundwater in the Molenitus area, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona, 1958: USGS Open – File Report 76-716 9 p. Hollett, K.J., 1985, Geohydrology and water resources of the Papago Farms - Great Plain area, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona, and the upper Rio Sonyota area, Sonora, Arizona: USGS Water Survey Paper 2258 Hollett, K.J., and Garrett, J. M., 1984, Geohydrology of the Papago, San Xavier, and Gila Bend Indian Reservations, Arizona - 1978-81: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-660, scale 1: 250,000. Thomsen, B.W., and Eychaner, J.H., 1991, Predevelopment hydrology of the Gila River Indian Reservation, south central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4073, 2 sheets. Thomsen, B.W., and Baldys, S., 1985, Groundwater conditions in and near the Gila River Indian Reservation, south central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4073, 2 sheets. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Yuma County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT 379 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Index to Section 7.0 Geography 3 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 7, 11 15 Environmental Conditions Vegetation 19 Cultural Water Use Tribal Demand Agricultural Demand 380 46-47 58-59 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin DRAFT Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 381 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.1 Geography of the Tiger Wash Basin The Tiger Wash Basin, located in the northeastern part of the planning area is 74 square miles in area, the smallest basin in the planning area and the state. Geographic features and principal places are shown on Figure 7.9-1. The basin is characterized by a valley bordered by mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub and a small amount of southwestern interior chaparral near the northwestern basin boundary. (See Figure 7.0-7) • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.9-1 are: o Basin place of Ambrosia Mill o Tiger Wash in the center of the basin o The lowest point is approximately 1,950 feet where Tiger Wash exits the basin southeast of Ambrosia Mill Not well shown on Figure 7.9-1 are the Harquahala Mountains in the northern portion of the basin and the Big Horn Mountains in the southern portion of the basin with the highest point at 2,724 feet. 382 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT 383 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.2 Land Ownership in the Tiger Wash Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Tiger Wash Basin is shown in Figure 7.9-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large proportion of U.S Bureau of Land Management lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management • 97.4% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Lower Sonoran Field Office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. • This basin contains 8,700 acres of the 23,000 acre Harquahala Mountains Wilderness. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Land use includes grazing, resource conservation and recreation. State Trust Land • 2.3% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 0.3% of the land is private. • Land uses include domestic and grazing. 384 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT 385 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.3 Climate of the Tiger Wash Basin The Tiger Wash Basin does not contain NOAA/NWS, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. Figure 7.9-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.9-3 • Average annual rainfall is as high as 18 inches along the northwestern tip of the basin and as low as eight inches in the southwestern portion of the basin. Table 7.9-1 Climate Data for the Tiger Wash Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Min/Month Average Precipitation (in inches) Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual None Source: WRCC, 2003 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in feet) (in inches) for Averages None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Period of Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches Elevation Record Used (Number of years to calculate averages ) (in feet) for Averages None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 386 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT 387 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Tiger Wash Basin Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.9-4. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.9-3 and Figure 7.9-4. There are no streamflow data or USGS runoff contour data available for this basin. A description of stream data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of reservoir data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.11. A description of stockpond data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.15. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 7.9-3 • There is one precipitation station in the basin located at Tiger Wash. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.9-4. • There are no large or small reservoirs and nine registered stockponds in this basin. 388 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT USGS Station Name Drainage Area (in mi2) Mean Basin Elevation Period of Record (in feet) None Winter Spring Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Fall Minimum Upper Tiger Wash 5130 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Notes: FCD = Flood Control District Station Name Station ID Precipitation Station Type 11/1/1981 Install Date Maricopa County FCD Responsibility Median Mean Maximum Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Table 7.9-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Tiger Wash Basin Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Station Number Table 7.9-2 Streamflow Data for the Tiger Wash Basin Years of Record 389 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.9-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Tiger Wash Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 9 390 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT 391 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Tiger Wash Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.9-5. The location of an intermittent stream is shown on Figure 7.9-5. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • There are no perennial streams and one intermittent stream, Browns Canyon Wash. There are no major or minor springs in the basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS is three. Table 7.9-5 Springs in the Tiger Wash Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and USGS, 2006): 392 3 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT 393 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Tiger Wash Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.9-6. Figure 7.9-6 shows aquifer flow direction. Data on water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004 was not available for this basin. Figure 7.9-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.9-6. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.2. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.19. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.9-6 and Figure 7.9-6. • The major aquifer in this basin is basin fill. • Groundwater flow is generally to the north and south away from the center of the basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.9-6. • The only well yield data available indicates a well yield ranges from dry to 500 acre-feet. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.9-6. • The estimate of natural recharge is less than 1,000 acre-feet per year. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.9-6. • There are three estimates of water in storage ranging from 700,000 acre-feet to two million acre-feet, both to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.9-7. • The Department annually measures two index wells in this basin, hydrographs for these index wells are shown on Figure 7.9-6. 394 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.9-6 Groundwater Data for the Tiger Wash Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 74 Name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Major Aquifer(s): 769** (1 well measured) Measured by ADWR and/or USGS N/A Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells N/A ADWR (1990 and 1994) Range 0-500 USGS (1994) <1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 700,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990) 1,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 2,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 2 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (5 wells measured) ** well located just outside basin boundary in Phoenix AMA 1 Predevelopment Estimate 11/27/2007 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT 395 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 396 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 7.9-7 Tiger Wash Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 200 250 0 50 A 1975 B 1975 basin fill B-05-09S02BBD WELL DEPTH: 400 ft USE: STOCK 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 235 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 recent stream alluvium B-05-09 19BDD 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT 397 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.7 Water Quality of the Tiger Wash Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.9-7A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.9-8 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.9-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mine Sites • Refer to Table 7.9-7A. • Two wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameters exceeded were nitrate and arsenic. Table 7.9-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Tiger Wash Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 5 North 5 North 9 West 9 West 2 19 NO3 As Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Area of Designated Use Impaired Lake Standard (in acres) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Water quality samples collected between 1984 and 2001. As = Arsenic NO3 = Nitrate/ Nitrite 398 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT 399 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Tiger Wash Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 7.9-8. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. The USGS National Gap Analysis Program, the primary source of cultural demand map data, showed no demand centers for this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.9-8 • Population in this basin is very small, with less than ten residents in 2000. • There are no recorded surface water uses. All groundwater use is for municipal demand and has remained relatively constant since 1971. • As of 2003 there were seven registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and no wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. 400 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.9-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Tiger Wash Basin 1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Recent Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered (Census) and Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected (DES) Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation Population 72 <500 NR <500 NR Data Source 02 <10 <10 <10 0 0 <500 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 0 0 <500 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 0 0 <300 NR <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 0 0 <300 NR <10 <10 <10 <10 NR 0 0 <300 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 WELL TOTALS: 7 0 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported 11/27/2007 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT ADWR (1994) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR USGS (2005) 401 Ownership 402 Facility Name City/Location Served Population Served Watercourse Evaporation Irrigation Pond Golf Course Wildlife Area Disposal Method No Waste Water Treatment Facilities Identified by ADWR in this Basin Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Table 7.9-9 Effluent Generation in the Tiger Wash Basin Discharged to Another Facility Population Not Served Year of Record Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Infiltration Basins Current Treatment Level Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Subdivision Name County Township Range Location Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Map Key ADWR File No. None identified by ADWR at this time Section No. of Lots ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination Table 7.9-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Tiger Wash Basin 1 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application No water adequacy applications for the Tiger Wash Basin were filed with the Department as of May 2005. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.1. 7.9.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Tiger Wash Basin 403 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Tiger Wash Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. ____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit.* _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* 404 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover.* _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____ (ALRIS), 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____ (ALRIS), 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index.html.* _____ (ALRIS), 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses.* D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. F Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 2003: USGS Water-Data Report AZ-03-1.* Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT 405 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M McCormack, H.F., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2002, Water resources data Arizona, water year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ-02-1.* N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. ______, 2005, Snowcourse stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., and Smith, C.F., 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* T Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 406 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____, 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Supplemental Reading Andersen, Mark, 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Headly, J.D., 1990, Groundwater conditions in the Harquahala Irrigation Non-Expansion area and Tiger Wash Basin, Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series No. 17 Klawon, J.E., and Pearthree, P.A., 2000, Field Guide to a dynamic distributary drainage system: Tiger Wash, western Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 00-01, 34 p. Pearthree, P.A., Klawon, J.E., and Lehman, T.W., 2004, Geomorphology and hydrology of an alluvial fan flood on Tiger Wash, Maricopa and La Paz Counties, West-Central Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 04-02, 40 p., 2 sheets. Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT 407 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Index to Section 7.0 Overview of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 1 7, 11 14 Environmental Conditions Vegetation 19 Water Supply Effluent 41 Cultural Water Use 44 408 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin DRAFT Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 409 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.1 Geography of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin The Western Mexican Drainage Basin, located in the south central part of the planning area is 610 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.10-1. The basin is characterized by desert valleys and low elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub. (See Figure 7.0-7) • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.10-1 are: o Basin places of Lukeville and the Organ Pipe National Monument Headquarters o Aguajita Wash west of Lukeville o Tule Desert in the western portion of the basin o The lowest point in the basin at 680 feet at Las Playas at the international boundary Not well shown on Figure 7.10-1 is the Sierra de Santa Rosa on the eastern basin boundary and the highest point in the basin at 3,149 feet. 410 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT 411 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.2 Land Ownership in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin is shown in Figure 7.10-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large proportion of National Wildlife Refuge lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. National Wildlife Refuge • 61.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. • Land uses include resource protection and recreation. National Park Service (NPS) • 36.3% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. • Land uses include resource conservation and recreation. U.S. Military • 2.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military as the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range. • Primary land use is military activity. Indian Reservation • 0.2% of the land is under tribal ownership as the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. • Tribal lands are located along the eastern basin boundary • Primary land use is grazing. State Trust Land • 0.1% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • State trust land is found in the eastern portion of the basin surrounded by the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. • Primary land use is resource conservation. Private • 0.1% of the land is private. • All private land is in the vicinity of Lukeville, however, it cannot be seen at the map scale shown. • Land uses include domestic and commercial. 412 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT 413 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.3 Climate of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 7.10-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.10-3. Figure 7.10-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Western Mexican Drainage Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.10-1A • There is one NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station in the basin, Organ Pipe Cactus N.M., with an average high of 89.2°F and an average low of 54.7°F. • Highest average seasonal rainfall, 4.38 inches, occurs in the summer season (JulySeptember) when 44% of the annual average precipitation occurs. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.10-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 14 inches along the northeastern basin boundary and as low as four inches in the western portion of the basin. 414 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.10-1 Climate Data for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Organ Pipe Cactus N.M. Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages 1,680 Average Temperature Range (in F) 1971 - 2000 Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 89.2/Jul 54.7/Jan 2.66 0.32 4.38 2.52 9.88 Source: WRCC, 2003 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in feet) (in inches) for Averages None Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station Name Period of Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches Elevation Record Used (Number of years to calculate averages ) (in feet) for Averages None Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT 415 416 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.10-3 and Figure 7.10-4. There are no streamflow data, reservoirs, stockponds or USGS runoff contour data available for this basin. A description of stream data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of reservoir data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.11. A description of stockpond data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.15. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 7.10-3 • There is one weather station in the basin located at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Headquarters. Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT 417 USGS Station Name Drainage Area (in mi2) Mean Basin Elevation Period of Record (in feet) 418 None Winter Spring Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Fall Minimum Median Mean 7230 Organ Pipe Weather Station Weather Station Station Type Notes: ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources Station Name Station ID 7/31/2004 Install Date Years of Record Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT ADWR Responsibility Maximum Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Table 7.10-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Station Number Table 7.10-2 Streamflow Data for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.10-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT 419 420 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.10-5. The location of a major spring is shown on Figure 7.10-5. There are no perennial or intermittent streams in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • There is one major spring with a measured discharge rate of 28 gallons per minute. This discharge rate may not be indicative of current conditions; the spring was last measured during or prior to 1992. This is the only major spring in the planning area. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 7.10-5B. There are two minor springs in this basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from four to six, depending on the database reference. • • Table 7.10-5 Springs in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name 1 Quitobaquito (multiple) Discharge Location 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) 315640 1130103 28 Date Discharge Measured During or prior to 1992 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Discharge Location 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Aguajita 315623 1130037 4 12/13/1976 Unnamed 315700 1130116 1 12/14/1976 C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and NHD, 2006): 4-6 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 1 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT 421 422 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.10-6. Figure 7.10-6 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.10-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.10-6. Figure 7.10-8 shows well yields in one category. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.2. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.19. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.10-6 and Figure 7.10-6. • The major aquifer is basin fill. • Groundwater flow is from north to south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.10-6 and Figure 7.10-8. • As shown on Figure 7.10-8, all recorded well yields less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm). • One source of well yield information, based on three reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 50 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.10-6. • The only estimate of natural recharge is 1,000 acre-feet per year. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.10-6. • There are two estimates of water in storage, 3 million acre-feet and 4.1 million acre-feet, both to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.10-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures one index well in this basin, hydrographs for this well and four other wells are shown on Figure 7.10-7. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 337 feet at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Headquarters and the shallowest is 27 feet near Puerto Blanco Drive. Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT 423 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.10-6 Groundwater Data for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 610 Name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Major Aquifer(s): 1.9 (1 well measured ) Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Range 30-50 Median 50 (3 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells N/A ADWR (1990 and 1994) Range 0-500 USGS (1994) 1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 4,100,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994) 3,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) N/A Arizona Water Commission (1975) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 1 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (6 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 11/28/2007 424 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT 425 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.10-7 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 0 A 50 5 0 1975 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 300 350 25 25 75 75 75 75 125 75 75 B 1975 C 1975 D 1975 E basin fill DEPTH: 40 ft USE: STOCK C-16-07 27BAD UNSURV 1985 1995 2005 basin fill C-17-05 17ABC2 UNSURV DEPTH: 420 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1985 1995 DEPTH: 100.8 ft USE: MONITORING 2005 basin fill C-17-08 09ADD UNSURV 1985 1995 2005 basin fill C-18-04 19AAC UNSURV DEPTH: 278 ft USE: MONITORING 1985 1995 2005 basin fill C-18-05 06DBB DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 125 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 426 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT 427 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.7 Water Quality of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.10-7A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.10-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.10-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mine Sites • Refer to Table 7.10-7A. • Six wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter for fluoride was equaled or exceeded in all wells. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic and lead. Table 7.10-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 8 West 8 West 17 17 18 24 9 11 F As, F As, F, Pb F F As, F Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Water quality samples collected between 1976 and 1988. As = Arsenic F = Fluoride Pb = Lead 428 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT 429 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 7.10-8. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. The USGS National Gap Analysis Program, the primary source of cultural demand map data, showed no demand centers for this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.10-8 • Population in this basin is very small, with 34 residents in 2000. Projections suggest a small increase in population through 2050. • There are no recorded surface water uses. All groundwater use is for municipal demand and has remained relatively constant since 1971. • As of 2003 there were 16 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and five wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. 430 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.10-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Recent (Census) and Projected (DES) Population Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation 142 <500 NR <500 NR Data Source 52 10 11 12 0 0 <500 13 14 15 16 17 2 0 <500 18 19 20 21 23 0 0 <300 NR 24 26 27 28 30 0 0 <300 NR 31 33 34 36 0 0 <300 NR 39 41 58 64 70 77 85 WELL TOTALS: 16 5 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported 11/28/2007 ADWR (1994) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT USGS (2005) 431 Ownership 432 Facility Name City/Location Population Served Served Watercourse Evaporation Irrigation Pond Golf Course Wildlife Area Disposal Method No Waste Water Treatment Facilities Identified by ADWR in this Basin Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Discharged to Another Facility Table 7.10-9 Effluent Generation in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Population Not Served Year of Record Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Infiltration Basins Current Treatment Level Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Subdivision Name County Township Range Location Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Map Key ADWR File No. None identified by ADWR at this time Section No. of Lots ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination Table 7.10-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application No water adequacy applications for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin were filed with the Department as of May 2005. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.1. 7.10.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 433 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Western Mexican Drainage Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005. _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit.* _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply. _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* 434 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover.* _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover.*= _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____ (ALRIS), 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____ (ALRIS), 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index.html.* _____ (ALRIS), 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses.* D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. F Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 2003: USGS Water-Data Report AZ-03-1.* Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT 435 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Investigations Atlas-HA664.* K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M McCormack, H.F., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2002, Water resources data Arizona, water year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ-02-1.* N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snowcourse stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., and Smith, C.F., 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* T Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____ 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping 436 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http:// www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. Supplemental Reading Andersen, Mark, 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Carruth, R.L., 1996, Hydrogeology of the Quitobaquito Springs and La Abra Plain Area, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico: USGS WaterResources Investigations Report 95-4295. Carruth, R. L., 1994, Hydrology of the Quitobaquito Springs area, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico: in the Approaching Millennium -Evolving Perspectives in Water Resources: Proceedings from the 7th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1994, Scottsdale, Arizona, p. 261-262. Fisher, S. G., 1989, Hydrologic and limonlogic features of the Quitobaquito pond and springs, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: US Park Service Report. Goodman, B.S., 1992, Hydrogeology of the Quitobaquito Springs Area, La Abra Plain, and the Rio Sonoita Valley, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT 437 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Yuma County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Index to Section 7.0 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 7, 11 15 Environmental Conditions National Monuments, Wilderness Areas and Preserves 24, 27 Cultural Water Use 44, 45 438 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin DRAFT Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 439 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.1 Geography of the Yuma Basin The Yuma Basin, located in the northeastern part of the planning area is 792 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.11-1. The basin is characterized by desert valleys and mountain ranges. Vegetation type is Lower Colorado River Valley Sonoran desertscrub. (See Figure 7.0-7) • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.11-1 are: o Basin communities of Fortuna Foothills, Gadsden, San Luis, Somerton and Yuma o The Colorado River on the western basin boundary o Yuma Desert in the southern portion of the basin o The lowest point in the basin at 70 feet where the Colorado River enters Mexico at the southern international boundary Not well shown on Figure 7.11-1 are the Tinajas Altas Mountains and the Gila Mountains on the eastern basin boundary with the highest point in the basin at 2,694 feet. 440 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 441 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.2 Land Ownership in the Yuma Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Yuma Basin is shown in Figure 7.11-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the relatively large portion of military and private lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.8. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Military • 51.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military • U.S. Military lands include the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range, the Yuma Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) and the Yuma Proving Grounds. • Primary land use is military activity. Private • 27.8% of the land is private. • Land uses include agriculture, domestic and commercial. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 8.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Yuma Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • Primary land use is unknown. State Trust Land • 5.9% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is agriculture. Other • 4.9% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. • Land use is unknown. Indian Reservation • 1.5% of the land is under tribal ownership. • Tribal lands include the Cocopah Indian Reservation in three separate areas in the western portion of the basin and the Fort Yuma-Quechan Indian Reservation west of Laguna Dam Road. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and agriculture. 442 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 443 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.3 Climate of the Yuma Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan and AZMET stations are complied in Table 7.11-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.11-3. Figure 7.11-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Yuma Basin does not contain SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.11-1A • Temperatures at the three NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations in the basin range from an average high temperature of 94.1°F at Yuma WSO AP to an average low of 54.1°F at Yuma Citrus Station. • Highest average seasonal rainfall at two of the three stations occurs in the summer season (July-September) when approximately 37% of the annual average precipitation occurs. The highest average annual rainfall in the basin is 3.89 inches at the Yuma Citrus Station. • This is the most arid basin in the state. Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 7.11-1B • There are two evaporation pan stations in the basin at elevations of 210 feet and 190 feet with an average annual evaporation of 122.5 inches and 99.21 inches respectively. AZMET • Refer to Table 7.11-1C • There are three AZMET stations in the basin at elevations ranging from 105 feet to 190 feet with average annual reference evaportranspiration of between 80.57 inches and 84.05 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.11-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall of four inches or less in most of the basin and an average annual rainfall as high as six inches along the eastern basin boundary. 444 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-1 Climate Data for the Yuma Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Yuma Citrus Station 190 1971 - 2000 90.8/Jul 54.1/Dec 1.16 0.23 1.51 0.99 3.89 Yuma Valley 120 1971 - 2000 89.6/Jul 54.9/Dec 0.99 0.13 0.82 0.69 2.63 Yuma WSO AP 210 1971 - 2000 94.1/Jul 57.4/Dec 0.93 0.16 1.10 0.82 3.01 Source: WRCC, 2003 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in feet) (in inches) for Averages Yuma AP 210 NA 122.5 Yuma Citrus Station 190 1920 - 2002 99.21 Source: WRCC, 2003. Notes: NA = Not available C. AZMET: Station Name Period of Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches Elevation Record Used (Number of years to calculate averages ) (in feet) for Averages Yuma Mesa 190 1987 - current 81.26 (6) Yuma North Gila 144 1988 - current 80.57 (6) Yuma Valley 105 1987 - current 84.05 (6) Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2005 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Source: NRCS, 2005 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 445 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 446 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Yuma Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 7.11-2. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.11-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 7.11-5. There are no flood ALERT stations or USGS runoff contour data available for this basin. A description of stream data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of reservoir data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.11. A description of stockpond data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.15. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 7.11-2. • Data from seven stations located at the Colorado and Gila Rivers are shown in the table and on Figure 7.11-5. • Highest average seasonal flow varies from station to station. Flows are impacted by regulatory releases, diversions and return flow. • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is almost 26 million acre-feet in 1909 at the Colorado River at Yuma Station. Mean annual flow at this station is 10.1 million acre-feet. The hydrograph of annual flows at this station shows the dramatic drop in river flow during the construction of Hoover Dam from 1931-1935. (See Figure 7.11-4) Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.11-4. • The basin contains two large reservoirs. The largest, Mittry Lake has a maximum storage of 4,850 acre-feet. This reservoir is used as a fish and wildlife pond and for flood control. • The other large reservoir, Morelos Diversion Dam was constructed by Mexico pursuant to the 1944 Treaty to provide Mexico a mechanism for the utilization of Colorado River water. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in two small reservoirs in the basin. • There are no registered stockponds in this basin. Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 447 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.11-4 Hydrograph of annual flows for Colorado River at Yuma Station (# 952100), water years 1904-1965 Annual Flow, million acre-feet 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1904 1914 1924 448 1934 1944 1954 1964 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 188,600 57,850 57,950 NA 242,900 246,700 246,700 USGS Station Name Colorado River below Laguna 1 Dam Gila River near Dome Gila River near mouth near Yuma Gila River at mouth (flow past gage only) Colorado River at Yuma Colorado River @ NIB above Morelos Dam Colorado River @ SIB near San Luis 9429600 9520500 9520700 9520701 9521000 9522000 9522200 NA 0 NA NA NA NA 121 1951 - current 23 27 17 1/1904-11/1983 (discontinued) 1950 - current 17 19 41 24 Winter 10/1975-6/1983 (discontinued) 5/1968-6/1983 (discontinued) 1/1903-2003 1973 - 2004 (real time) Period of Record 21 24 44 36 34 35 21 Spring 29 27 25 27 24 10 31 Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 26 22 14 20 22 14 24 Fall Table 7.11-2 Streamflow Data for the Yuma Basin Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 1 Notes: Gage in California NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record Sources: USGS NWIS, USGS 1998 and USGS 2003. Drainage Area (in mi2) Station Number Mean Basin Elevation (in feet) 9,412 (1982) 1,281,480 (1973) 682,711 (1961) 30,769 (1978) 149,144 1,671,716 9,628,539 38,371 6,700 4,772 0 (1993, 1936, 1940, 1942-1950) 56,398 (1978) 388,788 Median 251,952 (1973) Minimum 1,880,952 3,496,196 10,090,123 458,381 484,103 237,245 1,830,996 Mean Maximum 12,655,520 (1984) 15,392,240 (1984) 25,969,073 (1909) 1,720,895 (1980) 1,742,614 (1981) 4,733,110 (1993) 10,222,880 (1984) Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) 24 42 60 7 7 76 19 Years of Record 449 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Yuma Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility None Table 7.11-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Yuma Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Mittry Lake (Laguna Diversion) Bureau of Reclamation 4,850 F, C Federal 2 Morelos Diversion IBWC 1,160 O Federal USE JURISDICTION B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 2 Total surface area: 25 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 1 F = fish & wildlife pond; C = Flood control; O = Other IBWC = International Boundary Water Commission 450 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 451 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Yuma Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.11-5. The locations of perennial streams are shown on Figure 7.11-6. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.16. A description of spring data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.14. • • • There are two perennial streams in this basin, the Colorado River and most of the Gila River. A small reach of the Gila River, located on the eastern basin boundary, is intermittent. There are no major or minor springs in the basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS is one. Table 7.11-5 Springs in the Yuma Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and USGS, 2006): 452 1 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 453 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Yuma Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.11-6. Figure 7.11-7 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.11-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.11-7. Figure 7.11-9 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.2. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.19. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.11-6 and Figure 7.11-7. • The major aquifer is basin fill. • Flow direction is generally toward the Colorado River and south toward Mexico. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.11-6 and Figure 7.11-9. • As shown on Figure 7.11-9, well yields are generally greater than 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). • One source of well yield information, based on 327 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 2,456 gpm. • The line of wells along the international boundary is the 242 Well Field. These wells collect groundwater and deliver it via the 242 Lateral to Mexico to meet a portion of the International treaty obligations. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.11-6. • The estimate of natural recharge is 213,000 acre-feet per year. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.11-6. • There are three estimates of water in storage ranging from 34 million acre-feet to 49 million acre-feet, both to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.11-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 11 index wells in this basin, hydrographs for 10 index wells are shown on Figure 7.11-8. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 152 feet on the Mexican border and the shallowest is nine feet east of Yuma. 454 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-6 Groundwater Data for the Yuma Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 792 Name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Major Aquifer(s): Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 3,186-5,271 Median 5,098 (3 well reported) Range 10-7,000 Median 2,456 (327 wells reported ) Measured by ADWR and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 500-3,000 ADWR (1990) Range 0-2,500 USGS (1994) 213,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 49,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994) 34,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 35,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 11 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1992 (587 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 11/21/2007 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 455 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 456 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.11-8 Yuma Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A 0 50 1975 B Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 50 1975 C 0 50 1975 125 175 50 D 1985 1995 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 163 ft USE: UNUSED 1995 WELL DEPTH: 401 ft USE: UNUSED E WELL DEPTH: 191 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 2005 basin fill C-08-23 27DDD1 1985 1985 2005 basin fill C-08-22 25DAC3 WELL DEPTH: 84 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 100 1975 basin fill C-08-21 21BCA WELL DEPTH: 137 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill C-09-21 07AAD 1995 2005 basin fill C-09-22 17DCA YEAR Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 1995 2005 457 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.11-8 (cont’d) Yuma Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells F 0 50 1975 G 75 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface WELL DEPTH: 1201 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 0 50 75 125 1995 WELL DEPTH: 202 ft USE: MONITORING 175 1975 1985 458 2005 basin fill C-11-24 23BCB WELL DEPTH: 1038 ft USE: MONITORING J 2005 recent stream alluvium C-10-25 26CDB 1985 1985 125 1995 WELL DEPTH: 320 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 2005 recent stream alluvium C-10-23 31BBB1 1985 1975 I 1995 WELL DEPTH: 120 ft USE: UNUSED 125 1975 H basin fill C-09-25 35CBD 1995 2005 basin fill C-12-22 06DAA YEAR 1995 2005 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 459 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.7 Water Quality of the Yuma Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.11-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 7.11-7B. Figure 7.11-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.11-7. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.18. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Wells, Springs and Mines • Refer to Table 7.11-7A • One hundred and three wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • Parameters frequently equaled or exceeded include arsenic, organics, lead and total dissolved solids. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include antimony, beryllium, cadmium thallium, and nitrate. Lakes and Streams • Refer to Table 7.11-7B • The water quality standard for boron and selenium was equaled or exceeded in one 28 mile reach of the Gila River; a portion of this reach is also in the Lower Gila Basin. • This reach of the Gila River is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, at this time. 460 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Yuma Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 7 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 22 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 27 4 18 18 21 21 21 21 29 29 29 3 10 13 13 14 21 22 25 26 27 28 28 28 30 32 32 33 34 25 27 27 32 22 24 36 27 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 Organics TDS TDS TDS As, NO3, TDS TDS NO3 NO3, Th NO3 As, NO3 NO3 TDS NO3 As, TDS TDS As As NO3, TDS As As As As As As, Organics TDS As As, Be, F, Pb, NO3, TDS As As, NO3, Organics, TDS Organics As, TDS Organics, TDS Organics Be, Cd Organics Organics Pb Organics Pb As, Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb As Site Location Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 461 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Yuma Basin (cont'd.)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 21 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 24 West 4 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 17 22 7 7 31 5 24 24 28 29 33 36 1 10 11 13 15 16 17 19 21 24 36 9 5 6 10 1 As As As Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb As Pb Pb As, Pb As Pb NO3 NO3 Organics TDS Cd Cd Pb Organics NO3 Organics TDS As TDS NO3, TDS Organics Organics Organics Pb NO3, Organics As, TDS Organics As, Pb F, TDS Organics Organics Organics Site Location 462 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Yuma Basin (cont'd.)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 11 South 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 25 West 25 West 23 West 1 1 1 9 9 10 10 18 31 31 2 36 20 Sb Be Organics NO3 Organics NO3, TDS NO3 Organics Organics Organics Pb NO3 Organics Site Location B. Lakes and Streams Map Key a Notes: Site Type Site Name Stream Gila River (Coyote Wash to Fortuna Wash) Length of Area of Impaired Designated Use Impaired Stream Lake (in acres) Standard3 Reach (in miles) 28 NA Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 A&W B, Se 1 Water quality samples collected between 1975 and 2004. As = Arsenic B = Boron Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium F = Fluoride NO3 = Nitrate/ Nitrite Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides Sb = Antimony Se = Selenium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Th = Thallium 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife 2 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 463 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 464 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Yuma Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 7.11-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 7.11-9. Figure 7.1111 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Section 1.3.5. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.11-8 and Figure 7.11-11. • Population in this basin increased from 73,319 in 1980 to 152,883 in 2000 and projections suggest an increase to over 502,000 people in 2050. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation in the western portion of the basin. • Agricultural groundwater demand increased 24%, and agricultural surface water demand increased 9% between 1991 and 2003. This basin has the largest agricultural water demand in the planning area, with 258,000 acre-feet of groundwater demand and 778,000 acre-feet of surface water demand on average per year in 2001-2003. • Municipal groundwater demand decreased 27% and municipal surface water demand increased 25% from 1991 to 2003. • Industrial groundwater demand has remained relatively constant and industrial surface water demand decreased 25% from 1991 to 2003. • As of 2003 there were 2,778 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 502 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 7.11-9. • There are 26 wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for 20 facilities and information on the volume of effluent generated was available for 18 facilities. These facilities serve almost 313,000 people and generate over 13,000 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Four facilities discharge to the Colorado River, four discharge to evaporation ponds, two discharge for irrigation, three discharge to golf courses, three discharge to another facility and four discharge to unlined impoundments that recharge the aquifer. Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 465 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-8 Cultural Water Demands in the Yuma Basin1 Year Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet)3 Recent (Census) Number of Registered and Projected Water Supply Wells Drilled Surface-Water Diversions Well Pumpage4 (DES) Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation 1971 1972 253,000 1973 1,251,0005 1974 1975 1,0572 3312 1976 1977 229,000 1978 1,102,0005 1979 1980 73,319 1981 76,123 1982 78,926 211 74 224,000 1983 81,730 1,130,0005 1984 84,533 1985 87,337 1986 90,140 1987 92,944 472 26 211,000 1988 95,748 1,229,0005 1989 98,551 1990 101,355 1991 106,508 1992 111,660 352 39 8,100 1,000 206,000 25,500 3,900 1993 116,813 1994 121,966 1995 127,119 1996 132,272 1997 137,425 395 26 10,500 1,100 218,000 31,000 4,700 1998 142,577 1999 147,730 2000 152,883 2001 160,466 127 1 5,900 1,100 256,000 32,000 2,900 2002 168,049 2003 175,632 2010 228,713 2020 276,217 2030 339,001 2040 414,022 2050 502,498 ADDITIONAL WELLS: 6 164 5 WELL TOTALS: 2,778 502 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Includes pumpage and diversion of Colorado River Contract Water. 4 Well pumpage for irrigation includes drainage wells and the 242 well field. 5 Includes surface-water diversions in Parker and Yuma basins. 6 Other water-supply wells are listed in the ADWR Well Registry for this basin, but they do not have completion dates. These wells are summed here. 466 12/27/2007 Data Source ADWR (1994) 711,000 771,000 USGS (2005) ADWR (2005) 778,000 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT RV Park Yuma Private Hidden Shores WWTP Far West Water & Sewer Far West Water & Sewer Private San Luis Far West Water & Sewer Far West Water & Sewer Somerton Private Mesa Del Ray Palm Shadows WWTP Pioneer Center San Luis SBR Seasons RV Village Section 14 WWTP Somerton WWTF Sweetwater Creek Utilities WWTF Yuma Yuma, Jones & Main WTP Yuma Yuma NA 87,330 160 120 60* 581 7,355 880* 740* 20,888 680* 140* 4,000* NA 2,200 NA 888 72 400 NA 700 1240* 140 2100 Population Served Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 1 NA: Data not currently available to ADWR * Population fluxuates seasonally, population shown is the annual average. Plant will combine with Mesa Del Ray in Fall 2005 WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant SBR: Sequencing Batch Reactor WPCF: Water Pollution Control Facility Yuma YUMA Figueroa WPCF Yuma RV Park Private Yuma County Windhaven RV Park Yuma Yuma Yuma San Luis Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Far West Water & Sewer Yuma County Housing WWTP 1 Somerton Far West Water & Sewer Marwood WWTF Villa Royale WWTF Yuma US Marines Marine Corps Air Station-Recreation Area WWTF Yuma Yuma US Marines Jack Rabbit Mesa WPCF Marine Corps Air Station-Main WWTP Gadsen Fisher's Landing Yuma Private Yuma Donavan Estates Yuma RV Park Gadsen SD Yuma Desert Dunes/East Mesa Gadsen WWTP Private Del Pueblo RV & Tennis Resort Yuma Reservation Yuma City/Location Served Fisher's Landing Cocopah Tribe Far West Water & Sewer Del Oro WWTF State of Arizona ADOC - Yuma WWTP Cocopah North Community Ownership Facility Name 33.6 9,520 4 101 612 26 34 1,680 103 10 220 224 <56 NA 41 112 82 17 336 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Colorado River Colorado River Colorado River Colorado River Watercourse X X X X X X Evaporation Irrigation Pond Table 7.11-9 Effluent Generation in the Yuma Basin X X Adv. Trt. I Adv. Trt. I Adv. Trt. I Secondary NA NA 15,305 2004 2003 2004 2004 NA NA 2004 NA NA 2004 NA 2003 2004 NA NA 2004 2004 2004 NA NA 2001 2004 2004 NA 2000 2003 NA NA NA NA 140 NA Population Not Year of Record Served 2000 2001 2004 Mesa Del Ray Desert Dunes X Secondary NA Current Treatment Level 2004 NA X Yuma Figueroa X Infiltration Basins NA NA Discharged to Another Facility NA NA Mesa Del Sol Foothills Executive/ Foothills Par 3 NA Fortuna Del Rey Golf Course Wildlife Area Disposal Method 467 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 468 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.11-10. Figure 7.11-12 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Sections 1.3.1. Water Adequacy Reports • See Table 7.11-10 • As of May 2005, 227 subdivisions have been reviewed for an adequacy determination. All subdivisions are in Yuma County. • Of the 24,579 lots in 225 subdivisions for which lot information is available, 24,358 lots or 99% were determined to be adequate. • Reasons for a determination of inadequacy included water quality, insufficient water supply and the applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water. Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 469 Yuma Araby Eight Commercial Estates Bienestar Estates Bienestar Estates # 2 Bienestar Estates # 3 Bienestar Estates # 4 Bienestar Estates # 5 Bienestar Estates # 6 Bienestar Estates # 6A Bienestar Estates # 7A & 7B Bienestar Estates # 7C Bienestar Estates # 8A Bienestar Estates # 8B Blaisdell Bradley Estates Casa del Sol Townhouses # 1 Corcovado Townhouses D J Ranch Daybreak Debra Jean Estates Del Rey Estates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Desert Fairways Desert Foothills Estates # 2 Desert Foothills Estates # 3 Desert Foothills Estates # 4 23 24 25 26 470 Yuma 22 Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Del Sur Desert Air Mobile Estates # 1&2 21 Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma County Subdivision Name Map Key 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 8 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 9 South Township 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 22 West 22 West 21 West 23 West 21 West 23 West 21 West 21 West 24 West 21 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 25 West 24 West 24 West 25 West 22 West Range Location 10 10 8 4 11 12 6 17 4 35 10 4 11 21 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 1 7 7 12 4 Section 20 22 49 80 100 64 31 15 48 18 37 26 32 10 404 403 20 318 23 364 281 303 291 450 448 12 No. of Lots 22-401215 22-400134 22-400458 22-401843 22-401721 22-401842 22-400677 22-400687 22-300489 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate C 09/01/82 08/30/82 12/03/80 12/14/93 01/30/78 07/17/73 06/16/04 02/10/78 07/21/99 01/29/01 12/22/81 12/18/84 02/21/74 02/26/75 09/28/05 07/08/05 11/14/05 08/08/02 08/08/02 07/07/98 03/09/95 12/15/94 12/17/91 09/26/89 09/29/82 07/20/73 ADWR Reason(s) for Date of Adequacy Inadequacy Determination Determinatio Determination Table 7.11-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin1 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Desert Air Water Company Subdivision wells Farwest Water & Sewer Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision Far West Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision City of San Luis City of San Luis City of San Luis City of San Luis City of San Luis City of San Luis City of San Luis City of San Luis City of San Luis City of San Luis Fortuna Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Water Provider at Time of Application Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 El Camino Casitas El Prado Estates Escondido Beach Escondido Beach # 2 35 36 37 38 Foothills # 5C Foothills # 5D Foothills Mobile Estates Foothills Mobile Estates # 2 Foothills Mobile Estates # 3 Foothills Mobile Estates # 4 Foothills Mobile Estates # 5 Foothills Mobile Estates # 6 Foothills Mobile Estates # 7 Foothills Mobile Estates # 8 Foothills Mobile Estates # 9 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 11 South 11 South 8 South 9 South 10 South 10 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South Township 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 25 West 25 West 22 West 21 West 23 West 24 West 23 West 22 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West Range Location Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Foothills # 5B 41 40 39 Donley Estates 34 Estrella at Mesa Del Sol Unit 1 Estrella at Mesa Del Sol Unit 2 Desert Valley Estates 33 Yuma Yuma Yuma 32 Desert Foothills Estates # 8 30 Yuma Yuma Desert Foothills Estates # 7 29 Yuma Desert Ranchos Desert Foothills Estates # 6 28 Yuma Desert Star Estates Subdivision Desert Foothills Estates # 5 27 County 31 Subdivision Name Map Key 22 15 14, 15 9 15 15 15 15 3 9 9 9 5 4, 6 1, 2 2 28 4 8 3 24 23 10 10 10 10 Section 284 17 214 142 192 176 343 338 98 18 69 16 126 149 41 26 259 40 14 104 19 32 28 61 18 39 No. of Lots 22-401421 22-400978 22-400020 22-400906 22-400592 22-400634 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate C 03/08/84 09/01/82 10/25/82 08/30/82 07/09/81 03/28/80 12/28/79 08/08/78 02/01/78 08/17/87 09/23/76 08/28/73 11/05/04 07/07/03 05/17/74 11/19/73 06/19/92 06/15/81 03/01/99 03/31/03 01/17/02 01/27/75 02/12/02 09/28/94 04/29/92 04/27/90 Reason(s) for ADWR Date of Inadequacy Adequacy Determination Determinatio Determination Table 7.11-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (cont'd.)1 Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Fortuna Water Company Fortuna Water Company El Prado Water Company Far West Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision City of Somerton Tierra Mesa Estates Water Co. Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision Far West Water & Sewer Inc. Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Water Provider at Time of Application 471 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Foothills Mobile Estates # 11 Foothills Mobile Estates # 12 Foothills Mobile Estates # 13 Foothills Mobile Estates # 14 Foothills Mobile Estates # 15 Foothills Mobile Estates # 16 Foothills Mobile Estates # 17 Foothills Mobile Estates # 18 Foothills Mobile Estates # 19 Foothills Mobile Estates # 19A Foothills Mobile Estates # 20 Foothills Mobile Estates # 21 Foothills Mobile Estates # 22 Foothills Mobile Estates # 23 Foothills Mobile Estates # 24 Foothills Mobile Estates # 25 Foothills Mobile Estates # 26 Foothills Mobile Estates # 27 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Foothills Mobile Estates # 29 Foothills Mobile Estates # 30 Foothills Mobile Estates # 31 Foothills Mountain Estates 75 76 77 78 472 Foothills Mobile Estates # 28 74 73 72 Foothills Mobile Estates # 10 53 Foothills Mobile Estates # 27A Foothills Mobile Estates # 27B Subdivision Name Map Key Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma County 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South Township 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West Range Location 9 14 23 23 23 23 23 23 16 16 22 22 22 22 22 23 22, 23 22, 23 22, 23 15 22, 23 9 22, 23 22 22 9 Section 66 152 348 361 264 10 10 248 288 294 203 45 172 193 264 13 151 267 302 188 276 365 311 278 240 91 No. of Lots 22-400911 22-400754 22-400559 22-400485 22-400796 22-400486 22-400155 22-300589 22-300520 22-300468 22-300325 22-300376 22-300277 22-300212 22-400145 22-300132 22-300094 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate 10/10/74 03/31/03 07/02/02 08/01/01 04/06/01 11/21/02 04/06/01 08/18/99 02/17/99 09/08/98 06/09/98 07/28/97 12/09/97 05/01/97 10/18/96 10/19/99 04/17/96 02/15/96 01/27/95 10/06/93 05/12/94 01/29/86 05/18/89 03/06/85 02/10/84 12/22/82 Reason(s) for ADWR Date of Inadequacy Adequacy Determination Determinatio Determination Table 7.11-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (cont'd.)1 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water and Sewer Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water and Sewer Inc. Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Water Provider at Time of Application Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Las Barrancas # 1 Las Fuentes 99 Yuma Las Terrazzas Las Villas de San Luis # 1 & 2 Los Amigos 101 102 103 104 9 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 9 South 11 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 10 South 8 South 10 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South Township 21 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 21 West 24 West 24 West 23 West 22 West 21 West 21 West 23 West 22 West 23 West 23 West 25 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West Range Location Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Las Haciendas Las Quintas De San Luis Phase I & II 100 Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma 98 Yuma Lackner Estates Green Acres # 2 91 Yuma 97 Goldwater Ranch 90 Yuma La Quinta Estates Gold Cup Estates 89 Yuma 96 Gila Acres 88 Yuma King Ranch Gadsden Estates # 2 87 Yuma 95 Fortuna Trails 86 Yuma Jones Resubdivision Fortuna Road Commercial # 2 85 Yuma 94 Fortuna Road Commercial 84 Yuma Yuma Fortuna Hills 83 Yuma 93 Fortuna Heights 82 Yuma Yuma Fortuna Golf Units # 2 & 3 81 Yuma J&S Foothills North # 4 80 Yuma Jess Gomez' Mountain View Estates Foothills North # 3 79 County 92 Subdivision Name Map Key 6 7 7 6 34 7 14 34 25 24 12 3 22 20 29 7 26 13 15 8 8 2 6 3 2 2 Section 206 202 37 207 76 NA 230 17 23 10 24 9 7 71 10 8 29 56 122 15 6 63 260 32 211 313 No. of Lots 22-400005 22-400521 22-400204 22-300576 22-401609 22-400219 22-401684 22-400457 22-300026 22-300312 22-401829 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate A1 01/20/81 04/19/99 10/04/91 06/20/01 11/22/99 04/19/99 09/19/05 03/11/93 09/19/78 01/18/00 02/11/77 02/03/94 04/06/05 06/23/80 01/30/01 10/16/74 10/17/73 03/30/81 10/25/84 06/27/95 03/30/94 05/16/97 02/27/74 11/01/05 05/18/94 11/13/84 Reason(s) for ADWR Date of Inadequacy Adequacy Determination Determinatio Determination Table 7.11-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (cont'd.)1 Far West Water Company City of San Luis City of San Luis City of San Luis City of Somerton Far West Water & Sewer Inc. San Luis Municipal Water Company City of Somerton Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Far West Water Company Green Acres Water Company Far West Water & Sewer Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Gadsden Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water & Sewer Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Water Provider at Time of Application 473 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Los Portales del Alamo Unit 2 Los Portales del Alamo Unit 3 Los Portales del Alamo Unit 4 106 107 108 Lucky Lou Subdivision Mesa View Mesa del Sol # 1 Mesa del Sol # 2 Mesa del Sol # 3 Mesa del Sol # 4 Mesa del Sol # 5 Mesa del Sol # 6 Mesa del Sol # 7 Mesa del Sol # 8 Mesa del Sol # 9 Mesa del Sol Commercial Mesa Del Sol Unit # 10 Mesa Del Sol Unit # 11 Mesa Del Sol Unit # 12 Mesa Dunes Estates Mountain Shadows # 3 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 474 Los Portales del Alamo Unit 6 113 112 111 110 109 Los Jardines de la Plaza 105 Los Portales del Alamo Unit 4 Phase I Los Portales del Alamo Unit 4 Phase II Los Portales del Alamo Unit 4 Phase III Los Portales del Alamo Unit 4 Phases IV & V Subdivision Name Map Key Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 10 South 11 South 11 South Yuma Yuma 11 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 11 South 11 South Township Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma County 21 West 22 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 22 West 23 West 25 West 25 West 25 West 25 West 25 West 25 West 25 West 25 West 25 West Range Location 4 22 5 5 5 5 5 4, 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 17 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 11 Section 59 32 135 50 52 7 54 40 74 65 35 81 156 121 72 48 14 6 183 239 50 42 85 46 49 313 No. of Lots 22-401488 22-400483 22-400484 22-400518 22-400066 22-400208 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate 04/13/94 07/26/76 09/09/04 04/06/01 04/06/01 03/15/93 01/17/95 10/23/91 01/03/85 01/03/85 05/02/84 05/04/84 02/24/81 01/23/80 08/24/79 06/14/01 05/03/99 10/31/82 12/20/99 01/10/92 11/08/89 09/01/89 03/13/81 10/15/80 05/08/80 07/07/92 Reason(s) for ADWR Date of Inadequacy Adequacy Determination Determinatio Determination Table 7.11-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (cont'd.)1 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Far West Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Fortuna Water Company City of San Luis City of San Luis City of San Luis City of San Luis Fortuna Water Company Fortuna Water Company Fortuna Water Company City of San Luis Water Provider at Time of Application Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Mountain View Estates # 4 Mountain View Unit # 1 Mountain View Unit # 2 Mountain View Unit # 3 Mountain Vista Estates # 1 & 2 132 133 134 135 136 Oasis del Este # 4 Oasis del Oeste Orange Grove Mobile Manor 141 142 143 Rancho Del Sol Rancho Don Carlos 155 156 11 South 8 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South Township 24 West 23 West 21 West 21 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West Range Location Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma 154 Rancho Bonitos Co-op Park 152 Yuma Yuma Rancheros Bonitos # 2 151 Yuma Rancho del Oro # 1 Rancheros Bonitos 150 Yuma Rancho Del Oro # 2 Phase I & II R Circle J Estates 149 Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma County 153 Purple Mountain Subdivision 148 147 146 145 Orange Grove Mobile Manor #2 Orange Grove Mobile Manor #3 Orange Grove Mobile Manor #4 Orange Grove Mobile Manor #5 Oasis del Este # 3 140 144 Oasis del Este # 2 139 138 137 Mountain Shadows # 4 131 Mountain Vista Estates # 3 & 3A Mountain Vista Estates Unit # 5 Subdivision Name Map Key 7 8 5 5 30 30 30 12 31 31 31 31 31 31 8 8 8 8 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 Section 57 15 97 110 121 24 24 46 10 63 29 27 29 21 52 90 90 87 44 32 40 180 132 83 34 No. of Lots 22-300131 22-400151 22-400382 22-300136 22-401312 22-401427 22-401218 22-400897 22-400636 22-300155 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate B 11/13/96 08/18/99 09/12/00 03/24/84 02/15/87 11/21/96 03/11/78 06/26/75 12/20/04 10/15/80 02/20/79 10/11/77 07/08/75 11/06/73 07/09/81 05/13/86 05/13/86 12/12/83 09/30/04 10/08/85 08/01/83 05/25/04 03/07/03 01/08/02 08/02/88 10/18/96 Reason(s) for ADWR Date of Inadequacy Adequacy Determination Determinatio Determination Table 7.11-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (cont'd.)1 City of San Luis Dry Lot Subdivision Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Rancheros Bonitos Water Company Rancheros Bonitos Water Company Rancheros Bonitos Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Orange Grove Water Company Orange Grove Water Company Orange Grove Water Company Orange Grove Water Company Orange Grove Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Water Provider at Time of Application 475 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Rancho Los Oros Rancho Mesa Verde Rancho Mesa Verde # 2 Rancho Mesa Verde # 3 Rancho San Luis Ranchos el Toreo Ravines # 2 Ravines # 3 Riebe Ranchettes Rio Sereno Subdivision Rivera Estates Santa Clara Estates Phase I Santa Clara Estates Phase II Santa Clara Estates Phase III Schechert Estates Scottsdale East Estates Seasons RV Village Unit 1 Seasons RV Village Unit 2 Seasons RV Village Unit 3 Seasons RV Village Unit 4 Seasons RV Village Unit 5 Sienna at Mesa Del Sol Sierra Ridge Sierra Sands Sinclair Ranch Somerton Heights 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 476 Subdivision Name Map Key Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma County 10 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 9 South 11 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 11 South 10 South 10 South 9 South 11 South Township 24 West 23 West 22 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 25 West 22 West 21 West 21 West 22 West 25 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 25 West Range Location 3 13 31 9 4, 5 6 6 6 6 6 8 23 3 3 3 34 2 30 14 14 12 2 6 6 6 2 Section 102 8 32 171 60 133 133 125 136 157 114 16 76 22 15 24 95 8 210 212 28 143 56 54 53 183 No. of Lots 22-300197 22-401419 22-400724 22-400966 22-400967 22-400547 22-400309 22-400009 22-401187 22-400913 22-400782 22-400534 22-400535 22-400013 22-400341 22-401608 22-401610 22-400006 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate 08/18/76 06/24/91 10/16/96 08/16/04 07/03/02 06/17/03 06/17/03 12/01/05 05/24/00 02/05/99 07/20/04 03/31/03 10/09/02 06/27/01 06/27/01 06/14/99 07/21/00 12/04/84 09/19/05 09/19/05 08/22/79 09/01/89 03/23/89 07/17/86 04/21/84 04/19/99 Reason(s) for ADWR Date of Inadequacy Adequacy Determination Determinatio Determination Table 7.11-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (cont'd.)1 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT City of Somerton Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Far West Water & Sewer Far West Water & Sewer Inc. Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water and Sewer Far West Water Company City of Somerton City of Somerton City of Somerton City of Somerton City of San Luis Dry Lot Subdivision Far West Water & Sewer Inc. Far West Water & Sewer Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision City of San Luis Orange Grove Water Company Orange Grove Water Company Orange Grove Water Company City of San Luis Water Provider at Time of Application Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Yuma Sun Leisure Estates Sunburst Estates Taub Subdivision Tierra Bonita Subdivision Tierra Mesa Estates 1-5 Tierra Mesa Estates 6-9 Valle Del Sol Phase I & II Valle Sereno Valle Sereno Estates Phase III Valle Sereno Estates Phase IV Valle Sereno Estates Phase V Valle Sereno Estates Phase VI Valley Citrus Estates Vargas Estates Villa Chaparal # 1 Villa Chaparral # 2 Villa Chaparral # 3 Villa Chaparral # 4 Villa de Coronado Villa del Rey Townhouses Villa Royale Townhouses Villas Vista Del Sol Unit 1 Vista Montana # 1 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 8 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South Township 21 West 22 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 22 West 24 West 23 West 21 West 24 West Range Location Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Somerton Villa Southern Sands Mobile Estates County 183 Subdivision Name Map Key 15 12 8 4 4 4 7 7 7 7 34 25 3 3 3 3 3 3 24 24 24 20 10 28 6 34 Section 44 107 62 35 144 41 157 141 59 118 77 33 41 39 55 18 80 201 97 126 15 31 42 152 51 111 No. of Lots 22-300510 22-401655 22-401288 22-401238 22-400783 22-400834 22-401287 22-401247 22-400910 22-400900 22-400342 22-401720 22-400637 22-400057 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate 05/08/78 08/17/98 09/27/91 05/20/80 08/08/80 09/23/83 04/08/05 07/20/04 05/25/04 08/16/02 10/17/02 11/05/73 03/18/05 06/16/04 03/31/03 03/20/03 07/10/00 09/08/05 05/04/89 09/15/78 02/11/02 04/14/99 07/02/76 07/14/78 10/11/85 09/10/87 ADWR Reason(s) for Date of Adequacy Inadequacy Determination Determinatio Determination Table 7.11-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (cont'd.)1 Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water & Sewer Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water and Sewer Inc. City of Somerton Dry Lot Subdivision City of Somerton City of Somerton City of Somerton City of Somerton City of Somerton City of Somerton Tierra Mesa Water Company Improvement District Tierra Mesa Estates Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Private Far West Water Company City of Somerton Water Provider at Time of Application 477 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Westhoff Manor Condominiums Yuma East # 2 Yuma East # 3 & 4 Yuma East # 5 Yuma East # 6 Yuma East Estates # 1 Yuma East Estates # 2 Phase II Yuma East Estates # 7& 8 Yuma East Estates # 9 & 10 Yuma East Estates Phase III & IV Yuma Meadows Unit 3 Yuma Meadows Units 1 & 2 Yuma Meadows Unit 4 Yuma Mesa East Yuma Venture Zocalo Gardens # 1 Zocalo Gardens # 3 Zocalo Gardens # 4 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 10 South 10 South 10 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South Township 24 West 24 West 24 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 24 West 21 West Range Location 3 3 3 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 10 8 34 15 Section 100 40 68 125 52 91 111 58 104 122 130 137 175 22 87 506 127 16 44 No. of Lots 22-400873 22-400435 22-400673 22-400629 22-401656 22-401278 22-300477 22-400236 ADWR File No.2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate 02/03/89 11/15/83 03/10/81 12/05/83 11/09/78 02/12/03 12/11/00 04/11/02 02/12/02 04/08/05 07/20/04 06/11/98 08/03/94 03/30/94 04/23/85 12/03/80 05/16/79 01/12/00 01/17/79 Reason(s) for ADWR Date of Inadequacy Adequacy Determination Determinatio Determination City of Somerton City of Somerton City of Somerton Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water & Sewer Inc. Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company Far West Water Company City of Somerton Far West Water Company Water Provider at Time of Application 478 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Vista Montana # 2 209 County Subdivision Name Map Key Table 7.11-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (cont'd.)1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 479 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Yuma Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. _____, 2005, Annual reports, Small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1973, 1972 Arizona Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin S-8. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov.* Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWATP: Data file, received May 2005. _____, 2005, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. _____, 2005, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. _____, 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006.* _____, 2005, Surface water sources used by water providers: Data file, received June 2005.* _____, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004.* _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004.* _____, 2004, Water quality data base-Yuma Basin - 1/1900 to 6/2/04.* Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2006, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply.* _____, 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.* Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 480 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management.* _____, 2005, Water Protection Fund: Database, ADWR Office of Drought, Conservation and Riparian Planning. _____, 2005, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 2005, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis.* _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary.* _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990.* Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _______, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover.* _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover.* _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.* _____, 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2005, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html.* Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report.* E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* ____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* F Fisk, G.G., Duet, D.W., Evans, C.E., Angernoth, N.K., and Longsworth, S.A., 2004, Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 2003: USGS Water-Data Report AZ-03-1.* Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial 481 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664.* J Jacobson Companies, 1976, Water Report for the Town of Somerton, Somerton, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. _____, 1979, Water Report for the Fortuna Water Co., San Luis, Arizona . Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. K Konieczki, A.D. and Wilson, R.P., 1992, Annual summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, spring 1986 to spring 1987: USGS Open File Report 92-54.* M McCormack, H.F., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2002, Water resources data Arizona, water year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ-02-1.* N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2005, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snowcourse stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism.* P Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., and Smith, C.F., 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* S SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2005, Hydrologic Report and Physical Availability Demonstration, Los Olivos Development, San Luis, Yuma County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. _____, 2005, Hydrologic Report and Physical Availability Demonstration, Valle del Sol development, Somerton, Yuma County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. T Tadayon, S., King, K and others, 1998, Field screening of water quality, bottom sediment and biota associated with irrigation drainage in the Yuma Valley, Arizona, 1995: USGS Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 482 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4236. Tadayon, S., 2004, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293, 27 pp.* U US Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm* US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data file, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff. htm.* _____, 2006, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS): Arizona dataset, accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.* _____ 2004, Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap.* _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide.* V Valencia, R.A., Wennerlund, J.A., Winstead, R.A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E., and Olson, S., 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department.* W Wahl, C.R., Boe, S.R., Wennerlund, R.A., Winstead, R.A., Allison, L.J., Kubly, D.M., 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005, Clean Watershed Needs Survey-2004: Unpublished data sheets, received July 2005. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http:// www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Wilson, R.P., 1992, Summary of groundwater conditions in Arizona 1985 to 1986: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4179.* *All references marked with an asterisk contain information that was directly used in the basin summaries, tables or maps. 483 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Supplemental Reading Alavi, N., 2000, Groundwater investigation and remedial actions for operable Unit 1 at the Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona: in Environmental Technologies for the 21st Century: Proceedings from the 13th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, p.78. Andersen, Mark, 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Benemelis, P., 2003, Lower Colorado River Multi Species Program: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Bureau of Reclamation, 2006, Final Environmental Assessment for the Laguna Reservoir Restoration Project. Prepared by SAIC. Bureau of Reclamation, 2000, Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Carollo Engineers, 2007, Yuma System Water Plan: Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, January 2007. Carpio-Obeso, M.P., 1998, Study of toxic substances in the Lower Colorado River: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 181. City of Somerton, 2006, Water Supply Plan: Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, December 2006. City of Yuma, 2002, General Plan: Public Services Element. Clean Colorado River Alliance, 2006, Recommendations to Address Colorado River Water Quality. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 2005, Water Quality Standards for Salinity: Colorado River System. Coriolis, 2006, Far West Water and Sewer, Inc. Water Supply and Drought Preparedness Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources December 2006. Dickinson, J., Land, M.; Faunt,, C. Leake, S.A.; Reichard, E., Fleming, J. B.; Pool, D. R., 2006, Hydrogeologic framework refinement, ground-water flow and storage, water- Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 484 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 chemistry analyses, and water-budget components of the Yuma area, southwestern Arizona and southeastern California, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5135. Hart, R., 1999, Water quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS national stream accounting network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, White Mountains Arizona. Hill, B. M., 1993, Hydrogeology, numerical model and scenario simulations of the Yuma area groundwater flow model, Arizona, California and Mexico: Arizona Department of Water Resources, Groundwater Modeling Section, Final Report 115 p. MacNish, R.D., 1992, Scientific challenges in managing the Colorado River: in Interdisciplinary Approaches to Hydrology and Hydrogeology: American Institute of Hydrology, October 1992, p.323-337. Overby, A., 1997, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Yuma basin, Yuma County, Arizona 1992: Arizona Department of Water Resources, Hydrologic Map Series #30. Owen-Joyce, S.J., and Kimsey, S.L., 1996, An accounting system for water and consumptive use along the Colorado River, Hoover Dam to Mexico: USGS Water Supply Paper 2407, 94 p. Owen-Joyce, S.J., Wilson, R.P., Carpenter, M.C. and Funk, J.B., 2000, Method to identify wells that yield water that will be replaced by water from the Colorado River downstream from Laguna Dam in Arizona and California: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4085, 31 p. Radtke, D.B., 1990, Environmental contaminants in the lower Colorado River Valley, Arizona, California and Nevada: in Water Quality and Quantity Issues into the 1990’sAdaptations to Current Realities: Phoenix Arizona: Proceedings from the 2nd annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 1990, Casa Grande, Arizona, part R, p.1-21. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona, and adjacent \ parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Yuma County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Towne, D. 1998, Ambient groundwater quality in the Yuma basin: a 1995 baseline study, ADEQ Open File Report 98-7. Yuma County, 2001, Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan: Water Resources. 485 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Index to Section 7.0 Overview of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 1 Geography 3 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology Climate 5, 6-7 12, 14 15 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Managed Waters 19, 21 21 27 Population 27-30 Water Supply Colorado River Water Groundwater Effluent Contaminated Sites 31 34, 37-38 40 41 42, 44 Cultural Water Use Tribal Demand 46 Municipal Demand 47, 48-50 Agricultural Demand 53, 56, 59-61 Industrial Demand 61, 62 Water Resource Issues Colorado River Issues Planning and Conservation Issue Surveys Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT 64 66 67-69 486 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 487 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACC ADMMR ADWR ADEQ ADOC ALERT ALRIS AMA APS ARS ASDM ASLD AWBA AWPF AZDA AZGF AZMET BIA BCPA BECC BLM CAP CERCLA CLIMAS CNWR CRIT CVCA CVIDD DES DOD DWID EIS EPA ESA FR GIS gpcd gpm GSF GWSI HIA HSR HUC Arizona Corporation Commission Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Commerce Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time Arizona Land Resource Information System Active Management Area Arizona Public Service Arizona Revised Statute Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Arizona State Land Department Arizona Water Banking Authority Arizona Water Protection Fund Arizona Department of Agriculture Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona Meteorological Network United States Bureau of Indian Affairs Boulder Canyon Project Act Border Environment Cooperation Commission United States Bureau of Land Management Central Arizona Project Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act Climate Assessment for the Southwest Cibola National Wildlife Refuge Colorado River Indian Tribes Cibola Valley Conservation Area Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Arizona Department of Economic Security United States Department of Defense Domestic Water Improvement District Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Federal Register Geographic Information System Gallons per capita per day Gallons per minute Groundwater Savings Facility Groundwater Site Inventory System Historically Irrigated Acres Hydrographic Survey Report Hydrologic Unit Code DRAFT 488 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 HVID ID IDD IGA INA INWR IOPP ITCA LCR MSCP LDIG LUST MCWA maf mg/L M&I MOD MODE NHD NIB NOAA NPL NPS NRCD NRCS NWIS NWR NWS Pan ET PCE PDO RCRA ROD SB SIB SNOTEL TCE TDS TOUA USBOR USDA USDOI USF USFS USFWS USGS Harquahala Valley Irrigation District Irrigation District Irrigation and Drainage District Intergovernmental Agreement Irrigation Non-Expansion Area Imperial National Wildlife Refuge Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy Intertribal Council of Arizona Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Local Drought Impact Group Leaking Underground Storage Tank Mohave County Water Authority Million acre-feet milligrams per liter Municipal and Industrial Main Outlet Drain Main Outlet Drain Extension National Hydrography Dataset Northerly International Boundary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Priorities List (Superfund) United States National Park Service Natural Resources Conservation District Natural Resources Conservation Service National Water Information System National Wildlife Refuge National Weather Service Pan Evaportranspiration Tetrachloroethene Pacific Decadal Oscillation Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Record of Decision Senate Bill Southerly International Boundary SNOpack TELemetry Trichloroethylene Total Dissolved Solids Tohono O’odham Utility Authority United States Bureau of Reclamation United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Interior Underground Storage Facility United States Forest Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey 489 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 VRP WIFA WC&DD WDA WMIDD WQARF WRCC WWTF WWTP YCWUA YDP YMCAS Voluntary Remediation Program Water Infrastructure Finance Authority Water Conservation and Drainage District Water Delivery Agreement Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Western Regional Climate Center Wastewater Treatment Facility Wastewater Treatment Plant Yuma County Water Users Association Yuma Desalting Plant Yuma Marine Corps Air Station DRAFT 490 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 491 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX A DRAFT 492 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Appendix A Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area through 20051 LOWER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA Groundwater Basin AWPF Grant # Project Title Parker 96-0016 ‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve Parker 97-032 ‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve – Deer Island Revegetation Yuma 96-0011 Yuma 96-0023 Yuma 04-124 Yuma East Wetlands Riparian Revegetation Project Yuma 05-134 Quechan Indian Nation Yuma East Wetlands Restoration Project – Phase I Lower Colorado River – Imperial Division Restoration Watershed Restoration at the Yuma Conservation Gardens Project Category Habitat Restoration & Revegetation Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Wetland Restoration Watershed Restoration Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Source: ADWR, 2005, Water Protection Fund database: Office of Statewide Planning 1 A map with all Arizona Water Protection Fund grant locations can be found in Volume 1, Apeendix C 493 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX B DRAFT 494 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Colorado River Water Use: Present Perfected Right Holders and Priority 1-6 Arizonain Colorado RiverColorado Water Use Present Perfected Right Contractors the Lower River Planning AreaHolders and Contractors Listed by Priority Entity Type of Entitlement Priority Date Annual Diversion Entitlement Annual Consumptive Use Entitlement (Acre-Feet) (Acre-Feet) 1 1 PRIORITY 1 Satisfaction of Present Perfected Rights (PPRs) as defined and provided for in the Arizona v. California Decree (2006 Consolidated). Federal Cocopah Indian Reservation PPR No. 1 9/27/1917 7,681 PPR No. 8 1915 1,140 Total 8,821 PPR No. 2 Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation PPR No. 3 Fort Mojave Indian Reservation Fort Yuma Indian Reservation PPR No. 3a 3/3/1865 358,400 11/22/1873 252,016 11/16/1874 51,986 Total 662,402 9/18/1890 27,969 2/2/1911 75,566 Total 103,535 1/9/1884 Total 6,350 781,108 Water Projects Yuma County Water Users' Association (also has unquantified water right certificates) PPR No. 4 1901 Unit "B" Irrigation and Drainage District (also has unquantified water right certificates) PPR No. 5 7/8/1905 6,800 North Gila Valley Irrigation District (also has 3rd Priority consumptive use entitlement of 41,203 AF) PPR No. 6 7/8/1905 24,500 Total 254,200 285,500 Miscellaneous PPRs Powers Brooke Water LLC (also has 440 AF of 4th priority water Contract No. 5-XX-30-W044) Hulet (located in MVIDD service area) PPR No. 7 1915 960 PPR No. 9 1910 360 PPR No. 10 PPR No. 11 Contract No. 4-07-30-W0052 PPR No. 12 1902 1,080 1902 1,050 1902 240 McKellips/Granite Reef Farms (located in MVIDD service area) PPR No. 13 1902 810 Sherill and Lafollette (located in MVIDD service area) PPR No. 14 1902 1,080 Molina PPR No. 15 1928 318 Gila Monster Farms, Inc. (also has 6,285 AF of 3rd priority, 1,435 AF of 4th priority, 656 AF of 5th priority and an undetermined amount of 6th priority water - Contract No. 6-07-30-W0337) PPR No. 16 1925 780 Zozoya (located in MVIDD service area) PPR No. 17 1912 720 Swan (located in MVIDD service area) PPR No. 18 1902 960 Phillips, Milton and Jean PPR No. 19 1900 42 Parker, Town of (also has 1,030 AF of 4th priority and 2,000 AF of 5th and/or 6th priority water) PPR No. 20 1905 630 400 Yuma, City of (also has a 3rd Priority consumptive use entitlement 48,522 AF) PPR No. 21 1893 2,333 1,478 11,363 1,878 Hoover (formerly Hopal) (located in MVIDD service area) Miller (located in MVIDD area) Total 1 For Priorities 1 through 3 and Priorities 5 and 6, the totals for diversion and consumptive use entitlements are not additive. 495 AzCRPrioritiesListing-Priority 12-2007.xls Page 1 of 5 DRAFT 12/21/2007 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Colorado River Water Use Present Perfected Right Holders and Contractors Listed by Priority Entity Type of Entitlement Priority Date Annual Diversion Entitlement Annual Consumptive Use Entitlement (Acre-Feet) (Acre-Feet) 1 1 PRIORITIES 2 and 3 Second and third priorities are coequal. Priority 2 - Satisfaction of Federal Reservations and Perfected Rights established or effective prior to September 30, 1968 Priority 3 - Satisfaction of Entitlements pursuant to contracts between the United States and water users in Arizona executed on or before September 30, 1968 Federal Ak-Chin Indian Community Cibola National Wildlife Refuge Department of the Navy - Marine Corps Air Station - Yuma Department of the Army - Yuma Proving Grounds AK-CHIN121180A 1/1/1956 50,000 Secretarial Reservation 8/21/1964 34,500 Contract No. 14-06-300-937 1/1/1959 3,000 16,793 Contract No. I76r-696 6/12/1951 1,129 Havasu National Wildlife Refuge 1964 Supreme Court Decree Exec Order No. 8647/Public Land Order No. 559 1/22/1941 2/11/1949 41,839 37,339 Imperial National Wildlife Refuge 1964 Supreme Court Decree 2/14/1941 28,000 23,000 Executive Order No. 5105 Eecutive Order No. 5339 5/3/1929 4/25/1930 Annual quantities reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose of the Recreation Area SRPMIC021288N 3/4/1952 22,000 Secretarial Reservation dated November 29, 2000 4/26/1941 100 Lake Mead National Recreation Area - National Park Service Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community Lower Colorado River Dams Project - United States Bureau of Reclamation - Davis Dam Total Water Projects Unit "B" Irrigation and Drainage District (also has PPR for 6,800 AF) Water right certificates Contract No. 14-06-300-44 12/22/1952 Contract Nos.14-06-W-54 14-06-W-102 14-06-300-1270 (These 3 Districts share a consumptive use entitlement of 250,000 AF, which was allocated to each District by Reclamation on December 27, 2001) 1/1/1956 Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District Contract No. 1-07-30-W0021 3/4/1952 Yuma County Water Users' Association (also has a PPR for 254,200 AF) Water right certificates Contract No. 14-06-300-621 4/1/1957 North Gila Valley Irrigation District (also has a PPR for 24,500 AF) Yuma Irrigation District Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District 180,568 77,132 Unquantified water right certificates 41,203 67,278 141,519 278,000 Unquantified water right certificates Total 528,000 Others Arizona, University of Contract No. 14-06-300-144 1/1/1954 C. Allec Company, Inc. (formerly Allec, Camille) Desert Lawn Memorial Park Association (Cemetery in Yuma) (also has 360 AF of 4th priority water for undeveloped land near Unit B) Gila Monster Farms, Inc. (also has 780 AF of 1st priority, 1,435 AF of 4th priority and 656 AF of 5th priority and an undetermined amount of 6th priority water) Kaman, Inc. Union Pacific Railroad Company (formerly Southern Pacific Railroad Company) Yuma, City of (also has a PPR for 1,478 AF consumptive use) Contract No. 14-06-303-528 12/23/1953 1,088 120 Contract No. 14-06-303-1079 5/1/1956 200 Contract No. 6-07-30-W0337 1/1/1952 6,285 Contract No. 14-06-303-1555 12/2/1959 2 Contract No. 14-06-303-1524 12/21/1959 48 Contract No. 14-06-W-106 11/12/1959 Yuma, City of (Cemetery) Contract No. 14-06-303-1078 5/1/1956 60 Yuma Mesa Fruit Growers Association Contract No. 14-06-303-1196 1/1/1956 15 Yuma Union High School Contract No. 14-06-303-179 5/3/1960 Total 1 48,522 200 8,018 48,522 For Priorities 1 through 3 and Priorities 5 and 6, the totals for diversion and consumptive use entitlements are not additive. AzCRPrioritiesListing-Priority 12-2007.xls DRAFT Page 2 of 5 12/21/2007 496 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Colorado River Water Use Present Perfected Right Holders and Contractors Listed by Priority Entity Type of Entitlement Priority Date Annual Diversion Entitlement Annual Consumptive Use Entitlement (Acre-Feet) (Acre-Feet) 1 1 PRIORITY 4 Satisfaction of Entitlements pursuant to: (i) contracts, Secretarial Reservations, and other arrangements between the United States and water users in the State of Arizona entered into or established subsequent to September 30, 1968, for use on Federal, State, or privately owned lands in the State of Arizona (for a total quantity of not to exceed 164,652 acre-feet of diversions annually); and (ii) Contract No. 14-06-W-245 dated December 15, 1972, as amended, between the United States and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District for the delivery of Mainstream Water for the Central Arizona Project, including use of Mainstream Water on Indian lands. Municipal and Industrial Arizona-American Water Company (Havasu) (also has a lease with the MCWA for 950 AF of 5th priority water) Arizona Game and Fish Commission (entitlement is available for domestic & irrigation use. Also has 750 AF of fifth priority and 1,000 AF of sixth priority water) Contract No. 00-XX-30-W0391 1/23/2001 1,420 Contract No. 07-XX-30-W0509 9/25/2007 1,419 Arizona State Land Department Contract No. 7-07-30-W0358 2/2/2004 1,534 Arizona State Parks Board / Windsor Beach Contract No. 7-07-30-W0364 8/17/1998 90 Contract No. 06-XX-30-W0453 10/25/2006 60 Brooke Water LLC (also has a PPR for 360 AF) Contract No. 5-XX-30-W044 11/9/1983 440 Bullhead City (also has a subcontract with MCWA for 6,000 AF of 4th priority water & is in the process of acquiring a second subcontract for 2,139 AF) Contract No. 2-07-30-W0273 11/9/1994 15,210 B & F Investments, LLC Bureau of Land Management Secretarial Reservations and IGA No. 8-07-30-W0373 8/30/1973 800 9/29/1981 1,280 4/27/1987 1,930 6/13/2000 Total Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAP) (Balance of Arizona Colorado River allocation, approximately 1.5 MAF/Year) Crystal Beach Water Conservation District Desert Lawn Memorial Park Association (Cemetery in Yuma) (also has 200 AF of 3rd priority water) Ehrenberg Improvement Association Contract No. 14-06-W-245 12/01/1988 4,010 Contract No. 6-07-30-W0352 11/21/1997 132 Contract No. 14-06-300-2587 5/30/1975 360 Contract No. 8-07-30-W0006 10/14/1977 500 Contract No. 06-XX-30-W0450 12/21/2006 53 Gold Dome Mining Company Contract No. 0-07-30-W0250 6/6/1990 7 Gold Standard Mines Corporation Contract No. 3-07-30-W0038 8/25/1983 75 Golden Shores Water Conservation District Contract No. 9-07-30-W0203 6/1/1989 2,000 Hillcrest Water Company Contract No. 5-07-30-W0078 3/8/1985 84 Contract No. 3-07-30-W0039 10/4/1995 19,180 Contract No. 5-07-30-W0322 5/1/1996 70 Contract No. 7-07-30-W0355 7/31/1998 40 Contract No. 5-07-30-W0320 11/14/1968 18,500 Contract No. 4-XX-30-W0431 1/31/1983 4,578 Contract No. 14-06-W-204 11/14/1968 8,000 Fisher Landing Water and Sewer Lake Havasu City (also has unspecified amount of 5th and/or 6th priority water, and a subcontract with MCWA for 6,000 AF of 4th priority water. It is in the process of acquiring a second subcontract for 2,139 AF) Marble Canyon Company, Inc. (also has an unspecified amount of 5th and 6th priority water) McAllister, Maurice L. Mohave County Water Authority (Has 15,000 AF subcontracted to: Lake Havasu and Bullhead cities - 6,000 AF each; Mohave Water Conservation District - 3,000 AF. MCWA also has an undefined entitlement of 5th and 6th priority water) Mohave County Water Authority (entitlement is available for domestic and irrigation use in Cibola Valley and for domestic use in Mohave County. The Authority is in the process of subcontracting 2,139 AF of this water to both Bullhead City and Lake Havasu City) Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (part of the District's 41,000 AF entitlement - estimated M&I use based on USBR crop reports) (also has 2 leases with MCWA for a total of 980 AF of 5th priority water) 1 For Priorities 1 through 3 and Priorities 5 and 6, the totals for diversion and consumptive use entitlements are not additive. AzCRPrioritiesListing-Priority 12-2007.xls 497 Page 3 of 5 12/21/2007 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Colorado River Water Use Present Perfected Right Holders and Contractors Listed by Priority Entity Type of Entitlement Priority Date Annual Diversion Entitlement Annual Consumptive Use Entitlement (Acre-Feet) (Acre-Feet) 1 1 PRIORITY 4 (Continued) Municipal and Industrial (Continued) Mohave Water Conservation District (also has a subcontract with the MCWA for 3,000 AF of 4th priority water) Parker, Town of (also has a PPR for 630 acre-feet, and 2,000 acre-feet of Priority 5 and/or Priority 6 water) Contract No. 9-07-30-W0012 11/14/1968 1,800 Contract No. 2-07-30-W0025 1/6/1998 1,030 Quartzsite, Town of Contract No. 7-07-30-W0353 1/28/1999 1,070 Roy, Edward P. Contract No. 9-07-30-W0124 2/24/1986 1 Smucker Park Contract No. 14-06-303-2702 11/12/1969 33 Somerton, City of Contract No. 3-XX-30-W0419 2/8/2006 750 Verizon California, Inc. (formerly Continental Telephone of California) Contract No. 14-06-300-2506 2/5/1974 1 Water reserved by the Secretary for use in Indian settlements 3,500 Total 81,937 4,010 Municipal and Industrial Recommendations Arizona State Parks Board / Contact Point 20 Martinez Lake cabin sites - (had 87 AF of which 53 AF was allocated to Fisher Water and Sewer; 8 AF to Shepard Water; and 3 AF to ASLD) 23 Shepard Water Company 50 Total 93 Agricultural Arizona State Land Department (also has 9,097 AF of 5th and/or 6th priority water) Contract No. 4-07-30-W0317 6/28/1999 6,607 Beattie Farms Southwest Contract No. 5-XX-30-W0446 2/17/2006 1,110 Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (includes 300 AF for M&I use and also has 1,500 AF of 5th priority and 2,000 AF of 6th priority water) Contract No. 2-07-30-W0028 1/31/1983 12,066 Cocopah Indian Reservation (lands south of Morelos Dam) Contract No. 6-07-30-W0346 Supreme Court Decree 6/24/1974 2,026 Curtis, Armon Contract No. 3-07-30-W0037 8/29/1983 300 Contract No. 6-07-30-W0337 PPR No. 16 7/28/1997 1,435 Contract No. 4-XX-30-W0432 1/31/1983 5,997 Contract No. 06-XX-30-W0448 9/25/2007 1,080 Contract No. 14-06-W-204 11/14/1968 27,060 Contract No. 5-07-30-W0066 12/3/1984 480 George Ogram, Ogram Farms Contract No. 1-XX-30-W0398 9/4/2003 480 Ogram Boys Enterprises (formerly known as GOBO Farms) Contract No. 4-XX-30-W0402 7/1/2005 924 Contract No. 5-07-30-W0065 3/27/2003 486 Contract No. 5-07-30-W0064 10/29/1984 Gila Monster Farms, Inc. (also has a PPR for 780 AF, 6,285 AF of 3rd priority, 656 AFof 5th priority and an undetermined amount of 6th priority water) Hopi Tribe (also has 750 AF of 5th priority and 1,000 AF of 6th priority water) JRJ Partners LLC (formerly part of Dulin Farms) Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (the 41,000 AF entitlement less 8,000 AF for M&I uses and PPR's for 5,940 AF) North Baja, LLC (formerly Jamar Produce) (408 AF for agricultural use; 72 AF for M&I use) Pasquinelli, Gary J. (Hall contract assigned and amended from 510 to 486 AF) Rayner Ranches Total Agricultural Recommendations CHA CHA, LLC (Amended contract includes: Auza Farms - 960 AF, Dulin Farms-West portion - 936 AF, and Youmans - 204 AF) 2,100 Peach, John (formerly Bruce Church) 456 Phillips, Milton and Jean 1 4,500 64,551 18 Total 2,574 For Priorities 1 through 3 and Priorities 5 and 6, the totals for diversion and consumptive use entitlements are not additive. AzCRPrioritiesListing-Priority 12-2007.xls DRAFT Page 4 of 5 12/21/2007 498 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Colorado River Water Use Present Perfected Right Holders and Contractors Listed by Priority Entity Type of Entitlement Priority Date Annual Diversion Entitlement Annual Consumptive Use Entitlement (Acre-Feet) (Acre-Feet) 1 1 PRIORITY 5 AND 6 Priority 5 - Satisfaction of Entitlements to any Unused Arizona Entitlement Priority 6 - Satisfaction of Entitlements to Surplus Apportionment Water Priority 5 Arizona Game and Fish Commission (also has 1,419 AF of fourth priority and 1,000 AF of sixth priority water) Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (also has 12,066 acre-feet of 4th priority water and 2,000 AF of 6th Priority water) Hopi Tribe (also has 5,997 AF of 4th Priority water and 1,000 AF of 6th Priority water) Gila Monster Farms, Inc. - 5th priority (also has a PPR for 780 AF, 6,285 AF of 3rd priority, 1,435 AF of 4th priority water) Contract No. 07-XX-30-W0509 9/25/2007 750 Contract No. 2-07-30-W0028 1/31/1983 1,500 Contract No. 04-XX-30-W0432 1/31/1983 750 Contract No. 6-07-30-W0337 7/28/1997 656 Arizona Public Service (Yucca Power Plant) Contract No. 6-07-30-W0336 10/3/2000 1,500 Arizona State Land Department (also has 6,607 acre-feet of 4th priority water) Contract No. 4-07-30-W0317 6/28/1999 9,067 Lake Havasu City (also has 19,180 AF of 4th Priority water) Contract No. 3-07-30-W0039 10/04/1995 unspecified Marble Canyon Corporation (also has 70 AF of 4th prioirty water) Mohave County Water Authority - Entitlement leased to: MVIDD (Marina Coves) - 600 AF MVIDD (Bella Vista/Los Lagos) - 380 AF AZ-American Water Co.(The Refuge) - 950 AF Parker, Town of (also has PPR for 630 AF and 1,030 AF of 4th priority) Contract No. 3-07-30-W0322 5/01/1996 unspecified Contract No. 5-07-30-W0320 1/31/1983 unspecified Contract No. 2-07-30-W0025 1/6/1998 2,000 Contract No. 07-XX-30-W0509 9/25/2007 1,000 Contract No. 2-07-30-W0028 1/31/1983 2,000 Contract No. 6-07-30-W0337 7/28/1997 unspecified Contract No. 04-XX-30-W0432 1/31/1983 1,000 Prioirty 5 and/or 6 Priority 6 Arizona Game and Fish Commission (also has 1,419 AF of fourth priority and 750 AF of fifth priority water) Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (also has 12,066 AF of 4th Priority water and 1,500 AF of 5th priority water) Gila Monster Farms, Inc. - 6th priority (also has a PPR for 780 AF, 6,285 AFof 3rd priority, 1,435 AFof 4th priority) Hopi Tribe (also has 5,997 AF of 4th Priority water and 750 AF of 5th Priority water) 1 Total 20,223 Priority 1 Total 1,077,971 1,878 Priority 2 and 3 Total 188,586 653,654 Priority 1, 2, and 3 Total 1,266,557 655,532 Priority 4 Total 149,155 4,010 Priorities 1 through 4 Total 1,415,712 659,542 Priorities 5 and 6 Total 20,223 0 For Priorities 1 through 3 and Priorities 5 and 6, the totals for diversion and consumptive use entitlements are not additive. AzCRPrioritiesListing-Priority 12-2007.xls 499 Page 5 of 5 DRAFT 12/21/2007 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Listing of Arizona Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Priority Entitlement Holders in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Entity Type of Entitlement Priority Date Annual Diversion Entitlement (Acre-Feet) Annual Consumptive Use Entitlement (Acre-Feet) PRIORITY 5 AND 6 Priority 5, Satisfaction of Entitlements to any Unused Arizona Entitlement Priority 6, Satisfaction of Entitlements to Surplus Apportionment Water Priority 5 Arizona Game and Fish Department (also has 1,419 AF of fourth prority and 1,000 AF of sixth priority water) Contract No. 07-XX-30-W0509 9/25/2007 750 Contract No. 2-07-30-W0028 1/31/1983 1,500 Contract No. 04-XX-30-W0432 1/31/1983 750 Contract No. 6-07-30-W0337 7/28/1997 656 Arizona Public Service (Yucca Power Plant) Contract No. 6-07-30-W0336 10/3/2000 1,500 Arizona State Land Department ( also has 6,607 acre-feet of 4th priority water) Contract No. 4-07-30-W0317 6/28/1999 9,067 Lake Havasu, City of Contract No. 3-07-30-W0039 10/04/1995 unspecified Marble Canyon Corporation (also has 70 AF of 4th prioirty water) Contract No. 3-07-30-W0322 Mohave County Water Authority - Entitlement leased to: MVIDD (Marina Coves) - 600 AF MVIDD (Bella Vista/Los Lagos) - 380 AF AZ-American Water Co.(The Refuge) - 950 AF Contract No. 5-07-30-W0320 1/31/1983 unspecified Parker, Town of (also has 1,030 AF of 4th priority water) Contract No. 2-07-30-W0025 1/6/1998 2,000 Contract No. 07-XX-30-W0509 9/25/2007 1,000 Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Contract No. 2-07-30-W0028 1/31/1983 2,000 Gila Monster Farms, Inc. - 6th priority (also has a PPR for 780 AF, 6,285 AFof 3rd priority, 1,435 AFof 4th priority) Contract No. 6-07-30-W0337 7/28/1997 unspecified Contract No. 04-XX-30-W0432 1/31/1983 1,000 Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District - 5th priority (also has 12,066 acre-feet of 4th priority water) Hopi Tribe - 5th priority Gila Monster Farms, Inc. - 5th priority (also has 1,435 AF of 4th priority water) Prioirty 5 and/or 6 unspecified Priority 6 Arizona Game and Fish Department (also has 1,419 AF of fourth priority and 750 AF of fifth priority) Hopi Tribe - 6th priority Total: Priority 5 and 6 500 DRAFT AzCRPriorities4-6 1207.xls 20,223 Page 3 of 3 12/6/2007 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 501 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX C DRAFT 502 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX C Colorado River Management The “Law of the River” as described briefly below, is a collection of federal and state laws, interstate compacts, Supreme Court decisions and international treaties that govern the operation and use of the Colorado River. In the Lower Colorado River Basin, the United States Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is the Watermaster. Acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, the Secretary operates Colorado River dams and accounts for water use on an annual basis. Pursuant to Section V of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the Secretary contracts with water users in the Lower Basin for water up to the total amount of each state’s apportionment. Colorado River Compact – 1922 In 1921, the seven Colorado River Basin states authorized the appointment of commissioners to negotiate a compact for the apportionment of the water supply of the Colorado River. Although the states were unable to negotiate an allocation of water for each state, an agreement was signed in November 1922, the Colorado River Compact (Compact) that divided the Colorado River Basin into the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin. The Compact apportioned to the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and a portion of Arizona) and to the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada) the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet of water to each basin annually. Because the Colorado River Basin includes a portion of Mexico, the Compact recognized Mexico’s right to use River water. Water for this purpose was to be met from surplus water supplies in excess of the amounts apportioned to the Upper and Lower Basins. Any burden that might arise because of a water treaty with Mexico was to be shared equally by the two basins. The Compact recognized that the ability of the Upper Basin to meet the requirement to deliver 7.5 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin could be impacted by climatic factors, therefore the Compact only required the Upper Basin to restrict its use so that delivery to the Lower Basin would not be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years. Boulder Canyon Project Act - 1928 The Boulder Canyon Project Act (Project Act) authorized construction of the Hoover Dam and Power Plant and the All-American Canal. It also authorized Arizona, California and Nevada to enter into an agreement whereby the 7.5 million acre-feet of water apportioned to the Lower Basin by the Colorado River Compact would be apportioned as follows: to California, 4.4 million acrefeet per year; to Arizona, 2.8 million acre-feet per year; and to Nevada, 0.3 million acre-feet per year. Mexican Treaty – 1945 In 1945, a treaty between the United States and Mexico involving waters of the Colorado, Rio Grande and Tijuana Rivers was enacted to address, among other things, a fixed entitlement for Mexico of 1.5 million acre-feet annually from the Colorado River. The Treaty also provided 503 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 an additional 200,000 acre-feet in years of supply surplus. In years of extraordinary drought, Mexico’s entitlement is to be reduced in the same proportion as consumptive uses in the U.S. are reduced. Minute 242 was adopted and executed in 1973 in response to Mexico’s concerns regarding the quality of Colorado River water being delivered to the Mexicali Valley. Minute 242 obligates the United States to implement measures that will maintain the salinity of the Colorado River waters delivered to Mexico at nearly the same quality as that diverted at Imperial Dam for use within the United States. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was signed into law on June 24, 1974, providing for the physical works necessary to implement Minute 242 without permanent loss of water to the Colorado River Basin states. Upper Colorado River Basin Compact - 1948 This Compact divided the water apportioned to the Upper Basin by the Colorado River Compact between the five states with territory in the Upper Basin. Arizona was allocated 50,000 acre-feet per year with the remainder of the Upper Basin entitlement divided according to the following percentages: Colorado, 51.75; New Mexico, 11.25; Utah, 23.00; and Wyoming, 14.00. Arizona v. California - 1964 On August 13, 1952, the State of Arizona filed a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court against California and seven agencies within that state to resolve the contention by California that the Central Arizona Project should not be authorized. At California’s insistence, the U.S. Congress would not authorize the Central Arizona Project until Arizona’s right to the necessary Colorado River entitlement was clarified. The Decree, handed down in 1964, confirmed that Congress had already apportioned, through the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the entitlement of water to the three Lower Basin states as follows: Arizona, 2.8 million acre-feet; California, 4.4 million acre-feet; and Nevada, 300,000 acre-feet. Any surplus above 7.5 million acre-feet was apportioned 50 percent to California and 50 percent to Arizona, except that Nevada was given the right to contract for 4 percent of the excess, which would come out of Arizona’s share. The Decree also confirmed each of the Lower Basin state’s entitlements to the flow of the tributaries within their boundaries, supporting Arizona’s utilization of water from its in-state rivers, separate from its entitlement to its full 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River water. The Decree left shortage allocation to the discretion of the Secretary after providing for satisfaction of present perfected rights in the order of their priority dates. These rights were defined as rights existing and used prior to the effective date of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Colorado River Basin Project Act - 1968 The Colorado River Basin Project Act on September 30, 1968 authorized construction of the Central Arizona Project and other water development projects in the Upper Basin. A significant DRAFT 504 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 concession was a provision that allowed existing California, Arizona, and Nevada Colorado River contractors to receive a priority over the Central Arizona project in times when the useable supply from the River was inadequate to provide 7.5 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin states, with California’s priority limited to its 4.4 million acre-foot entitlement. The Act directed the Secretary to propose criteria for the “coordinated long-range operation of the reservoirs” in the Upper Basin with the operation of the reservoirs in the Lower Basin. To accomplish this, the Act required the development of an Annual Operating Plan, in consultation with representatives of the seven Basin states. Current Colorado River Issues Shortage Criteria In December 2007, the Secretary of the Interior signed the Record of Decision (ROD) on interim operating criteria (2008-2026) including the coordinated operation of Lakes Powell and Mead and criteria for implementing shortage reductions in the Lower Basin. At this time Lake Powell and Lake Mead are operated independently; annual Lake Powell water releases are determined based on applicable law and relevant factors contained in the Long-Range Operating Criteria. Proposed coordinated operation of the reservoirs would address two goals: avoid Lower Basin shortages and avoid curtailment of Upper Basin water use. If regional drought conditions continue shortage operations could begin as early as 2011. In May 2005, Arizona water users asked ADWR to convene a stakeholder technical workgroup to develop a recommendation regarding appropriate Lower Basin shortage criteria and a strategy for apportioning shortage reductions between the Central Arizona Project (CAP) and equivalent priority mainstream Colorado River water users. In October, 2006 the Workgroup forwarded their recommendation to the Director, and with minor modifications it has been incorporated into the Reclamation Environmental Impact Study as part of the Basin States Alternative. The modified shortage recommendation implements shortage reductions when Lake Mead water storage is depleted to key elevation triggers: In years when Lake Mead content is projected on January 1 to be at or below elevation 1075 ft and at or above 1050 ft, Arizona’s share of shortage reductions would be 320,000 acre-feet, below 1050 ft and at or above 1025 ft, 400,000 acre-feet and below 1025 feet elevation, 480,000 acre-feet. Reclamation will reconsult with the states if conditions continue to worsen necessitating additional water supply reductions. The available shortage water supply would be apportioned within Arizona between the fourth priority mainstream water users and the CAP by first determining the mainstream available supply, based upon entitlement. (Total fourth priority mainstream diversion entitlement ÷ total fourth priority water supply before shortage reduction) X (total fourth priority water supply – shortage reduction volume) The remaining fourth priority water supply after deducting the mainstream supply would be 505 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 available for diversion by the CAP. Entitlement Transfers Arizona communities along the Colorado River have experienced explosive growth over the last decade. These Arizona communities are unique because groundwater is not readily available as a supplementary water supply to meet this growing demand. Regardless of whether Colorado River water is diverted from the mainstream or pumped from wells that are hydraulically connected to the river, the water is legally Colorado River water, and annual use is limited to a defined, maximum amount. The Boulder Canyon Project Act requires U.S. Colorado River water users in the Lower Basin to have a contract for such water with the Secretary of the Interior. The Regional Director of Reclamation contracts with Lower Basin water users on behalf of the Secretary. The Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California requires Reclamation to account annually for all diversions and use of Colorado River water against the total Arizona allocation of 2.8 million acre-feet. To meet this growing domestic demand, some Colorado River communities have acquired, transferred and changed the type of use of existing agricultural water entitlements. For nonfederal Arizona contractors of mainstream Colorado River entitlements, these transfer actions are subject to review by the ADWR and consultation with ADWR and Reclamation. The Department has developed a substantive policy statement titled Policy and Procedures for Transferring an Entitlement of Colorado River Water that provides information regarding the Department’s review of a proposed transfer action. This policy is available on the Department’s website at www.azwater. gov. To date, using its substantive policy statement, the Department has made three assignment and two conveyance recommendations involving agricultural water entitlements. The Department is currently experiencing increasing contact from entities that are interested in the acquisition and conversion of agricultural entitlements to municipal and industrial uses and it expects to process additional contract transfer requests in the future. A separate substantive policy statement governs the transfer of CAP subcontract entitlements within the three county CAP service area. The Revised Policy Regarding Transfer of Central Arizona Project Municipal and Industrial Water Subcontract Entitlements describes the criteria the Department evaluates and the priority of proposed transfer actions. Growth in the CAP service area has resulted in increased use of existing CAP subcontract water, and the Department expects few future transfer action proposals. Lower Colorado River Planning Area Entitlement Transfer Actions The following are a list of assignment and conveyances that have been conducted in accordance with the Department’s Colorado River transfer policy that affects entities in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area. All involve a series of assignments and conveyances that began with the initial partial assignment of Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District’s entitlement in 2004. In 2007, one assignment and one conveyance action occurred, in the planning area. See Appendix B for a complete list of Colorado River entitlements within the planning area. 1. 2004 - Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (CVIDD), located in the southern DRAFT 506 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 part of the Parker Basin, assigned 5,995 acre-feet of 4th priority, 750 acre-feet of fifth priority and 1,000 acre-feet of sixth priority irrigation entitlements to both the Mohave County Water Authority (MCWA) and to The Hopi Tribe. 2. 2007 – CVIDD assigned another 60 acre-feet of its 4th priority entitlement to Cibola Resources. Cibola Resources then conveyed the 60 acre-feet to B&F Investments for use by a proposed travel plaza to be located in the Ehrenberg area. 3. 2007 - MCWA conveyed 4,578 acre-feet of its 4th priority entitlement for eventual M&I use by Lake Havasu and Bullhead City 4. 2007 – MCWA assigned 1,419 acre-feet of its 4th priority and all of its 5th and 6th priority entitlements to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission for habitat restoration purposes in the Cibola Valley Note: Assignments: Entitlement is assigned to a new entity, the type and place of use remain the same. Conveyances: Entitlement may or may not be transferred to a new entity, but the place of use and/or the type of use is changed. Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy In October 2003, the Secretary of the Interior signed the Record of Decision to implement the Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement (WDA). The WDA includes the Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy (IOPP) to identify inadvertent overruns and to establish procedures to account for overruns and define subsequent payback requirements for Colorado River water users in the Lower Basin. Inadvertent overruns occur when Colorado River water is diverted, pumped or received by an entitlement holder in excess of the water user’s entitlement for that year. The IOPP creates a process and criteria to structure payback of the amount of water received in excess of the entitlement for that year. Federal Rulemaking to Establish the Accounting Surface In August 2006, Reclamation initiated a rulemaking process to regulate the non-contract use of Colorado River water in the Lower Basin. The Boulder Canyon Project Act requires U.S. Colorado River water users in the Lower Basin to have a contract for such water with the Secretary of the Interior. The Regional Director of Reclamation contracts with Lower Basin water users on behalf of the Secretary. The Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California requires Reclamation to account annually for all diversions and use of Colorado River water against the total Arizona allocation of 2.8 million acre-feet. The rulemaking is intended to ensure that all Colorado River water use is covered by an entitlement 507 DRAFT Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 and correctly accounted for within the state’s apportionment. Reclamation has contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey, to document non-contract water uses in the Lower Basin. The rule will establish the methodology that Reclamation will use to determine if a well is pumping Colorado River water and will also establish an appeal process. At this time, approximately 11,500 acrefeet of unallocated fourth-priority Colorado River water is available for allocation. Some of this water will be allocated to existing uses, after currently uncontracted uses have been quantified. The inventory is expected to provide comprehensive information about existing water uses that need an entitlement. The Department will use this information to allocate the remaining supply for domestic purposes. Yuma Desalting Plant Operations One unintended consequence of utilizing Colorado River water for domestic and agricultural purposes has been the steady increase in the salinity of its waters. The salinity problem created international discord in the 1960’s when crops in the Mexicali Valley were damaged by the high salinity of the Colorado River water used for irrigation. An amendment to the 1944 treaty with Mexico guaranteed that the treaty water delivery would be no more than 115 ppm (+/- 30 ppm) more saline than the water diverted at Imperial Dam. To comply with this requirement, the U.S. implemented a number of measures including re-routing drainage water from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD), to the Cienega de Santa Clara in Mexico. The U.S. also built a $250 million desalinization plant in Yuma to treat WMIDD drainage water, before returning it to the mainstream. The Yuma Desalinization Plant was completed in 1992, operated briefly in 1993 and then put on standby status until a recent “demonstration run” in 2007. Wellton-Mohawk drainage water that is bypassed each year to the Cienega, is not counted against the total amount of Colorado River water that must be delivered under the terms of the Treaty. In dry years, this results in Lake Mead storage decreasing by approximately 100,000 acre-feet annually since the bypassed water must be “made-up” from storage in Lake Mead. Recently, the decrease in Lake Mead storage after more than a decade of drought has increased the risk of shortage to Arizona Colorado River water users. Salinity Increased salinity levels in the Colorado River affect agricultural, municipal and industrial users. Agricultural water users suffer economic damage due to reduced crop yields, added labor costs for irrigation management and added drainage requirements. Urban users must replace plumbing and water-using appliances more often, or spend money on water softeners or bottled water. Industrial users and water and wastewater treatment facilities incur reductions in the useful life of system infrastructure. Damages in the United States are estimated at $330 million per year, and while economic damage in Mexico is not quantified it is also a significant concern. In 1972, EPA required development of water quality standards for salinity in the Colorado River in accordance with Clean Water Act Section 303. The seven Colorado River Basin States formed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (the Forum) in 1973. The Forum has developed DRAFT 508 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 numeric salinity standards for three locations in the Lower Basin as well as a basin-wide plan of implementation. The EPA has approved the standards and the plan of implementation adopted by the Colorado River Basin States. The water quality standards establish a flow-weighted average annual salinity standard that must be maintained on the lower Colorado River at the following locations: • • • Below Hoover Dam (to Parker Dam) - 723 mg/L Below Parker Dam (to Imperial Dam) - 747 mg/L At Imperial Dam - 879 mg/L Implementation of the salinity control plan has ensured compliance with the numeric criteria while the Basin States continue to develop the water allocated to them by the Colorado River Compact. Millions of dollars have been spent to prevent 1.9 million tons of salt from entering the river. Other Water Quality Issues In 2005, the Governor of Arizona appointed The Clean Colorado River Alliance (Alliance) stakeholder group to address water quality issues for the Colorado River. In addition to salinity, the Alliance identified several other water quality concerns including nutrients, metals, endocrine disrupting compounds, perchlorate, bacteria and pathogens, and sediment. The Alliance issued a report titled Clean Colorado River Alliance Recommendations to Address Colorado River Water Quality, January 2006. The report includes a number of recommendations to monitor and mitigate the impacts of these pollutants. 509 DRAFT